Britain's Future Strength, the Health of Elementary School.Children, 1867-1907: a Study in Social Policy, Legislative Action and Government Growth

BRITAIN'S FUTURE STRENGTH, THE HEALTH OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.CHILDREN, 1867-1907: A STUDY IN SOCIAL POLICY, LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND GOVERNMENT GROWTH

by

ANTHONY STUART FARSON B.A., University of Guelph

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

May, 1976

CY ANTHONY STUART FARSON In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study.

I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of History

The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT

The major objective of this thesis is to throw new light on the problem of "how" and "why" the function of the State within society changed dramatically during the first few years of the twentieth century

By concentrating on the Liberal Government's measures of 1906 to 1907 to improve the health of working-class children this thesis hopes to show that the role of men and their beliefs played a far more important part in the development of the "British Welfare State" than has hitherto been credited. By illustrating how the social, political, and economic condi tions of the period 1870 to 1900 affected the consciousness of individ• uals and groups, it attempts to explain why there was a delay between the time when the extent of poverty became intolerable and the time when measures were enacted to relieve the problem.

Three major themes intertwine throughout this thesis. These are the cause of government growth; the changing status of working-class children; and measures to improve the health of the nation. Chapter One discusses the social, physical, and psychological factors which affected the health of children before 1880, and illustrates the high esteem in which working-class parents held their children. Chapter Two shows how middle class Britain attempted to deal with the problem of child health in the period before the end of the nineteenth century.

Chapter Three attempts to explain "how" and "why" the physical condition of the British working class became a question of major poli• tical significance for the first time. Specifically it describes the nineteenth century origins of the "National Efficiency" movement, the part played by the movement in concentrating public attention on the physical condition of the working class, and discusses the blue-print for social action formulated by the Inter-departmental Committee on

Physical Deterioration.

The last chapter describes how the Liberal Government of Sir

Henry Campbell-Bannerman began the enactment of this social blue-print.

Their first step was an Act which allowed local education authorities to feed needy school children free of charge. This was soon followed by another Act which allowed local education authorities to require the medical examination of all children attending public elementary schools.

Together these Acts began a process of long-term social planning in

Britain. iv

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Introduction 1

I. Child Life Amongst the Mid-Victorian Working Class: A Discussion of the Social, Psycho• logical, Economic and Physical Factors Affecting the Health of Children 12

II. Changes in Health Consciousness in Late Victorian Britain: An Assessment of the Role of "Experts" in Improving the Health of Children 47

III. The National Efficiency Movement and the Question of Physical Deterioration: Basic Ingredients in the Formation.of a National Blue-print for Social Action 99

IV. The Enactment of a Social Blue-print: The Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children-—Initial Steps in Long-term Social Planning '. 165

Conclusion 205

Bibliography 213 V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the help of a number of people. I owe a special vote of thanks to Mrs. Anne Yandle and the staff of Special Col• lections. They always went out of their way to be help• ful. Likewise, I am heavily indebted to all those in

Inter-Library Loan who tracked down my numerous requests.

The University of British Columbia helped finance my studies with the gift of a fellowship for the academic year 1973-74. The Institute of Industrial Relations were very generous in providing me with a research grant for the academic years 1972-73 and 1973-74.

I would like to thank Dr. J. Winter for his kind• ness, encouragement, and. the sound counsel he provided on a number of occasions. Finally, I would like to ex• press my appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. J. Norris, for his constructive criticism and patience in editing several drafts of this thesis. 1

INTRODUCTION

Since the end of the Second World War major changes have taken place in the way history has been studied and written. Social history,

once described as "history with the politics left out"''' has become domi•

nant in the discipline. By comparison, older and better established

approaches have been subordinated in the search for a broad and exciting 2

new desxgn—the history of society. These dramatic changes in the dis•

cipline are themselves reflections of a vast social revolution which has

swept through the industrialized world over the last hundred and fifty years. In Britain this revolution has been responsible for broad changes

in social standards and social conditions. These in turn have initiated

reforms of the law. Though these legislative changes have been of con•

siderable interest to historians for many years, much confusion remains

about their nature and direction.

This confusion stems from two sources. First, the actual words

used to describe the social transformation have tended to block the way 3

to a satisfactory explanation. Terms like "laissez-faire," "collectiv•

ism," "state intervention," and particularly, the "welfare state," have

become embroiled in contemporary political controversy. As a result,

many have become "politically loaded" and have acquired inclusive as well

as exclusive meanings.

The second and more important source of confusion is to be dis•

covered in the methods selected to analyse nineteenth century government

growth and the emergence of the modern conception of the British State.

Though it is now widely accepted that there is much more to the process 2 of social policy formation and legislative action, and hence government 5 growth, than the direct and inverse relationship seen by A. V. Dicey between law and public opinion, attempts so far to explain "how" and

"why" the function of the State within British society has changed over

the last hundred and fifty years have tended to concentrate more upon

finite political events—the Acts of Parliament which embodied social

reform—than the actual agents of social change.^ Where there have been

attempts to deal extensively with causal factors, little attention has been given to weighting the factors involved in order of their impor- 7 tance. In addition, these efforts have devoted more time to such "concrete" changes as the physical conditions of life than to the impact 3

of these changes on the Victorian or Edwardian consciousness. In fact,

with the exception of a few general articles historians have largely

ignored the impact of changing social standards on social policy forma- 9

tion and legislative action. This appears to be a particularly serious

error from two points of view. Calvin Woodward has pointed out that a

strong case can be made for social standards being ultimately respon•

sible for deciding whether or not, and if so when, a particular group or

individual will find a specific form of behaviour or condition "intoler•

able," as well as their determining the context in which social problems

are cast, the types of solutions sought, and the forms of activities

that particular individuals will demand of their national institutions.

John H. Goldthorpe has claimed that an "action frame of reference"—anal•

ysis in terms of the changing social standards of particular groups of

individuals—can be particularly valuable in cases where time-lags exist 3

between the identification of an acute social problem and the provision of effective counter-measures.^ As a result, it appears that existing methods of analysis have not only misrepresented and subordinated the place of men and their beliefs in historical analysis to a secondary level, but have been responsible for oversimplifying many of the social, legislative, and administrative changes which occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This oversimplification has lent a false connotation of "inevitability" to the process of social change.

In addition, it has led to the assumption that social legislation occurred according to some sort of natural rhythm or as the result of accidents of history, and consequently, that there were no time-lags or discontinu• ities in the historical process between the moment when a certain social phenomenon was identified as being "intolerable" and the time when the

British Government acted to improve the situation. In consequence, existing methods of analysing social change have implicitly ruled out the possibility of any long-term notion of social planning on the part of late-Victorian politicians and administrators.

This thesis is concerned with the changing function of the British

State during the first decade of the twentieth century and is based on the assumption that recent analyses of nineteenth-century government growth and the "origins of the British Welfare State" represent oversimpli• fications on at least four grounds. First, they have not satisfactorily explained why certain social problems became "intolerable" "when" they did. Second, they have glossed over "why" the British Government acted

"when" it did. Third, they have not taken into full consideration the 4 time-lags and the discontinuities in the historical process. Fourth, they have tended to overlook the possibility of any notion of long-term social planning.

Objectives

Besides attempting to illustrate how an examination of the chang•

ing social standards of particular groups or individuals in society can provide the historian with valuable insights for understanding social policy formation, legislative action, and government growth, this thesis has two more specific goals. The first is fairly straightforward. By

trying to explain exactly "how" and "why" the British Parliament came to pass legislation in 1906 to 1907 which allowed local authorities to feed

and medically inspect public elementary school children, this thesis is

intended as a specific study of social policy formation, legislative

action, and government growth. The second goal is more complex. The passage of the Elementary Education Acts is a major concern. Likewise,

the emergence of health consciousness during the late nineteenth century,

the health of children generally, and the changing status of working-

class children specifically, are all important underlying themes. As a

result, it might be expected that this thesis hoped to provide contribu•

tions to the histories of British education, medicine and childhood.

This, however, was not the primary intention. Rather the studies of

child health, nineteenth-century health consciousness and the passage of

the Education Acts have been used to show how the status of children

changed. It is a primary facet of this thesis that this change reflected

a more profound change of status—that not of the working-class child 5 but rather that of the future working man. As a result, this thesis is intended to represent a contribution to the history of the working class.

Background

British children of all socio-economic groups now enjoy a posi• tion of particularly high status. At the political level the State recognizes that the nation's children represent one of the country's most vital assets. In legal terms children now possess definite, inalienable rights: to food, clothing, and shelter; and to medical care and education according to their needs and abilities. Besides legal yardsticks, a whole range of cultural rules now restricts the- exploitation of children.

Cruelty to children, and the sexual abuse of children by adults, have become serious taboos. At the same time, it is now accepted by all the political parties that it is the function of government to ensure that children obtain these rights and protections.

The State's recognition of its responsibility to provide the nation's children with certain protections and social services has only

come about during the last hundred and fifty years. For most of the nineteenth century the majority of British children were left poorly

clothed, undernourished, and dirty and smelly. Some children were fortu•

nate enough to receive a smattering of education. Few obtained medical

care. Many saw long hours of arduous labour for little reward. Poverty

for most children was endemic and unavoidable. Harsh treatment was

handed down to young offenders by the courts. Some children were bru•

tally beaten by employers, overseers of child labour, and parents alike.

Family life, even when both parents were alive, often turned into a 6 struggle for existence. Death and disease were indeed frequent visitors.

It was not unlikely for a child to lose one and sometimes both parents before maturity. The death of a brother or a sister or two, as well as many childhood friends, was only to be expected. Homes, often back-to- back and with few windows, were crowded together, row after row/ behind the more respectable looking main streets of towns and cities. As a result, living conditions were often cramped, squalid and unsanitary.

All these, coupled with the intimacy of the family's communal sleeping quarters, placed children in numerous moral and physical dangers. Never• theless, slowly, piece by piece, each of the barriers to a healthy, moral and happy childhood were removed. Between the 1830's and the 1870's legislators concentrated mainly on the conditions of juvenile labour and the child's moral character. Acts were passed which restricted the number of hours a child might work. Women, girls, and young children were for• bidden to enter several forms of employment. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, education, the prevention of cruelty, and the establishment of special provisions for physically handicapped and mentally retarded children attracted political attention. In the first decade of the twentieth century legislation specially aimed at the

improvement of the health standards and life chances of the young was passed. Since that time legislation geared to benefit children has been mainly concerned with the improvement or enlargement of existing laws.

Legislation specifically introducing social welfare schemes for children not only play an important role in the emergence of the British

Welfare State but reflect a change in status of children. Changes in the 7 status of children, particularly those from a working-class background, can provide valuable insights into the cause and extent of social change over the last hundred and fifty years.

Unfortunately the changing status of specific groups in society has seldom been used by historians as a tool for historical analysis.

Recent popular histories of the "welfare state," such as Maurice Bruce's

The Coming of the Welfare State, have implied that the change in function of the British State over the last hundred and fifty years has come about as the result of a sort of evolutionary process. That is to say, the shift from a State which saw the minimum of State interference in the economy and social life of the British people to one which saw the need

for State intervention in many fields of life, was brought about by an unrelenting demand for social justice as the result of a "typically 12 English" response to the problems and conditions of British society. The evolutionary theme is even present in recent contributions to 13

the history of British education and childhood. A recent article by

Nigel Middleton entitled, "The Education Act of 1870 as the Start of the

Modern Concept of the Child," despite the fact that.it uses the concep•

tion of changing status, albeit confusingly, is perhaps typical. Though he admits the 1870 Act neither made education free nor compulsory,

Middleton suggests that its "most far-reaching effect was to give the

child a special status and set in train a chain of measures which revolu- 14 tionized his position in society." Such statements need particularly close perusal. Not only may Middleton be guilty of placing his cart 15 before his horse, but, as Frank Musgrove has shown, the implications 8 of measures providing services and protections for children are far from clear-cut. While on the one hand provisions and protections may indicate a rising concern for children, they also illustrate a process at work in

society in which specific groups are separated and classified. Neverthe•

less, it is Middleton's claim that the 1870 Education Act opened a bene•

ficial version of Pandora's box which "incontrovertibly" set in motion

so many social improvements "that it is difficult to list them in an organized fashion," which is particularly worrisome."*"^ Even if one over•

looks for a moment the fact that Middleton fails to explain exactly

"how" the 1870 Act caused this multitude of social improvements, one is

still left with a number of assumptions which are not necessarily sup• ported by the facts. Taken to the ultimate logical conclusion the open•

ing of Middleton's beneficial Pandorian box allows no qualitative

difference between the legislation of the late nineteenth century and

that of the first decade of the twentieth century. In addition, it sug•

gests that late-Victorian and Edwardian politicians and administrators

had no long-term conception of social planning, to say nothing of the

fact that it completely glosses over the time-lag of more than twenty

years between the time when education became compulsory and when the

British Government intervened to improve the health and welfare of ele•

mentary school children.

Some profound economic, social, and political changes lay behind

the Education Act of 1870. Just as the 1870 Act needs to be explained in

these terms so too do the measures which were passed to ensure the health

of children. This thesis hopes to show by examining the changing status 9 of British working-class children between the middle of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth how earlier interpretations of the development of child health and welfare legislation have been misleading. As a result, this study is more concerned with a new syn• thesis of existing evidence than with primary research. Specifically, it sets out to illustrate that there was a fundamental, qualitative differ• ence between measures to improve the health of school children of 1906 and 1907 and those of the previous century. As a result, it argues that the School Meals Act and the provision of free medical inspection for elementary school children derived primarily, not from humanitarian de• sires to improve the health and welfare of children, but from the fear that the British race was deteriorating. This fear, it will be shown, penetrated the very core of all that was sacred to the British. People from many walks of life, with a variety of interests and ideas, all be• lieved that unless something were done, Britain would not be able to main• tain its position as the world's greatest military, industrial, commercial, and colonial power. This "national emergency" allowed a strange assort• ment of people to join together momentarily and demand action of an unpre• cedented kind. This convergence of what had sometimes been divergent social forces not only lasted long enough for action to be instigated, but for British politicians and civil servants to develop a clear under• standing of the need for long-term social planning. As a result, while this also had the effect of raising the status of the working class, it was riot the British working man* but rather-.-.the*-British" .working man's

sons and daughters-^the children of the nation—who were first'to receive

attention as the result of this new social farsightedness. 10

FOOTNOTES

± G. M. Trevelyan's remark is cited by E. J. Hobsbawm, "From Social History to the History of Society," Daedalus, 100 (Winter 1971), 21. 2 See ibid., pp. 20-45. 3 There is now general agreement on this point. J. B. Brebner, "Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-Century Britain," Journal of Economic History, 8 (Supplement, 1948), 59-73, drew attention to it by giving the same sort of treatment to A. V. Dicey's notion of government growth as Marx had given to Hegel. In this way he showed that Jeremy Bentham, the "arch-supporter of laissez-faire," also favoured "collectivist" methods. 4 For example, take the terms "laissez-faire" and "welfare state": the former has been used to imply a general philosophy in which the state interferes as little as possible with the day-to-day life of the individual. It has also implied a specific, non-interventionist economic policy of the British Government; the latter is even more ambiguous. In 1948 it was a popular pseudonym for the political, social, and economic policies of the British Labour Government. Most people believed "it" was fully operational, but few knew what the "it" was. Cf. Asa Briggs, "The Welfare State in Historical Perspective," European Journal of Soci• ology, 2 (1961), 221. In addition, it has been used by analysts of com• parative international development as if it had universal implications. It now appears that the term "welfare state" carries specific ideological, political, legal, sociological, and economic nuances. Cf. Arthur Marwick, The Nature of History (New York, 1970), pp. 219-20, and T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship and Social Development (New York, 1964), chapter 14. 5 See A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1914). ^ This trend is still found in both general and specific studies. The most recent general history of the welfare state follows this ap• proach. See Derek Fraser, The Emergence of the Welfare State (London, 1973). The most recent contribution to the history of childhood, though promising a "sociological" approach follows it. See Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society (London, 1973), I and II. 7 General surveys of the history of the welfare state, such as David Roberts's The Victorian Origins of the Welfare State (New Haven, 1960), or Maurice Bruce's, The Coming of the Welfare State (London, 1972), provide a wonderful "shopping list" of factors responsible for social re• form, and have failed to place the factors involved in any form of order. Q Oliver MacDonagh has suggested, "The Nineteenth-century 11

Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal," Historical Journal, I (1958), 52-67, that a particular "concatenation of circumstances" was responsible for government growth. It is interesting to note that he makes no specific mention of changes in social attitudes or standards in his "model." This discrepancy was duly noted by Jennifer Hart, "Nineteenth- century Social Reform: A Tory Interpretation of History," Past and Pre• sent, 31 (July 1965), 39-61. She has shown that the starting point of MacDonagh's "model" contained a tautology, namely "intolerability" while purporting to explain "why" something happened, in fact, explained nothing. She believed that the term was too elastic because she saw no agreement on either the criteria for qualifying an issue as being "intolerable" or on the facts of a social issue. 9 See John H. Goldthorpe, "The Development of Social Policy in England, 1800-1914: Notes on a Sociological Approach to the Problem in Historical Explanation," Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology, 4 (September 1962), 41-56, and Calvin Woodward, "Reality and Social Reform: The Transition from Laissez-faire to the Welfare State," Yale Law Journal, 72 (1962), 286-328. 10 See Woodward, pp. 286-328. 11 See Goldthorpe, pp. 41-56. 12 See Bruce, p. 7.

13 For example, see Pinchbeck and Hewitt. 14 See Nigel Middleton, "The Education Act of 1870 as the Start of Modern Concept of the Child," The British Journal of Educational Studies, 18 (1970), 173.

15 See Frank Musgrove, "Population Changes and the Status of the Young in England since the Eighteenth Century," Sociological Review, 11 (1963), 69.

See Middleton, p. 173. 12

CHAPTER I

CHILD LIFE AMONGST THE MID-VICTORIAN WORKING CLASS:

A DISCUSSION OF THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC

AND PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING

THE HEALTH OF CHILDREN

Despite such recent contributions to the history of childhood as

Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt's Children in English Society: From the Eighteenth Century to the Children Act of 1948, surprisingly little is really known about what it was like to be a juvenile member of the mid^Victorian working-class community. Hitherto, British historians, in spite of promises of a "sociological approach,have seldom gone beyond an explanation of how Acts of Parliament which affected the health and welfare of children originated. It is perhaps an obvious, but, neverthe• less, much overlooked fact, that all the laws directed specifically for the benefit of children prior to the advent of the twentieth century were prepared, passed and executed, without exception, by members of the upper classes, and that these laws, for the most part, affected only the lives of the offspring of the working class. As a result, this concen• tration on political events rather than on the things which affected the average child on a day-to-day basis, had been responsible not only for limiting the discussion of Victorian childhood to the perspective of those who played a part in framing the Acts, but also for introducing a certain amount of class bias to the analysis when generalizations about the nature of Victorian childhood have been made. It is, therefore, not surprising 13

to find the following assumptions, be they implicit or not, in current us• age: (i) working-class parents tended to treat their children cruelly and cared little for their offspring's future; (ii) that the humanitarian in•

stincts of the ruling classes were primarily responsible for the child health and welfare legislation of the first decade of the twentieth century; and (iii) that the notion of childhood as a specific period in an individ• ual's life became accepted by all groups in society about the same time.

This chapter is concerned with those social, psychological,

economic and physical factors which were responsible for seriously under• mining the health of working-class children during the mid-Victorian period. The concentration on the conditions of child labour and the working-class family environment attempts to correct a number of misappre•

hensions about the nature of changes in the conditions of working-class

child life. By providing evidence which shows that the mid-Victorian working class held their children in high esteem, and that this esteem

did not decline as child labour became more and more restricted, this

chapter hopes to provide a more accurate image of the relationship between

the working-class parent and his child. By suggesting that the ruling

classes did not see any urgent need, beyond the obligations of their

religious beliefs, to be concerned about the well-being of working-class

children as a distinct and special group in society until the late 1860's,

and by arguing that the Education Act of 1870 represented something more

profound than merely the opening of a beneficial version of Pandora's

box, this chapter serves to set the scene for a later discussion of the

development of child health and welfare services in which the primary 14 driving force is seen not in terms of humanitarian instincts but in the need to supply a future generation of physically and mentally capable workers and soldiers.

I

The well-being of the mid-Victorian working-class child depended on the prosperity of the family unit. At the same time, the prosperity of the family was critically affected by the number of children that sur• vived the first year of life. Though there were no detailed surveys of working-class poverty conducted before Charles Booth's study of London

in the late-1880's and 1890's, recent family reconstruction studies of

Lancashire towns have shown that as many working-class families suffered

from poverty during the mid-nineteenth century as did in the closing years. In addition, these studies have shown that there was a definite 2 cyclical pattern to family poverty. Michael Anderson has shown by exam•

ining food prices, rents, total family incomes, family size, and the ages of children in the life-cycles of married couples that by far the most

important influence on family prosperity was not individual wages, food prices, or rents, but the number of dependent children a family had. He has concluded that as soon as a working-class family had five dependent children it suffered severe distress, and that while wage increases and

falls in food prices or rents brought some relief, the problem was not alleviated until at least one of the children was able to contribute to 3 the family income. Since most mid-Victorian working-class families had 4 at least six children it may be concluded that before birth-rates began

to fall, nearly all working-class children were poverty-stricken at one 15 time or another. This conclusion is substantiated by J. D. Foster's study of Oldham. He asserts that no more than 15 per cent of working- class families completely escaped a period of poverty.^

These periods of family poverty had catastrophic consequences for Britain's next generation of agricultural and industrial workers.

Though many agricultural workers had small plots of land and were able to grow some of their own food, and were not forced to live in such squalor as their urban counterparts, serious obstacles to a healthy exis• tence remained for those who lived in rural districts. In the country• side it was rare to find cottages with more than two bedrooms, and most had only one.6 This fact alone would not have been too serious, but it was compounded by agricultural workers being amongst the last to limit 7 the size of their families, and pressure in some areas, to constrain the building of new cottages. As a result, overcrowding, a major influ• ence on the spread of disease, represented a considerable problem. A mid-century government report noted a case at Stourpain in Dorset where a family of eleven slept in one room. This room was ten feet square,

seven feet high at the centre, and had only one fifteen inch square win• dow. According to the Commissioner who made the report, such conditions Q were common amongst families of this station. In the industrial centres population pressure, created by normal 9 10 population growth and compounded by migration, put a considerable

stress on the social system. Towns expanded faster than satisfactory housing could be built. Existing sewage and drainage systems failed to

cope with the greater volume of waste products now demanded of them. In 16

Lancashire, which was one of the most urbanized counties in Britain, the problem created by population pressure became acute. Michael Anderson has shown that another world existed behind the respectable main streets:

There were long rows of blackened two-story terraced cottages, some : built back-to-back. There were also narrow twisting lanes and en• closed courts of a dozen or fewer houses. Overshadowing all were the factory chimneys. Here and there were shops and chapels and public houses. In some areas the houses had been built so rapidly that the roads were left unpaved, unsewered and unguttered, along which vehicles passed with difficulty. Some of the houses were so badly built that they were in need of repair almost immediately. In some towns much of the population lived in dark, damp cellars.12

In Liverpool some 30,000 people, many of them children, lived in such cellars. In Manchester a further 18,000 suffered an equally squalid 13 fate. A mid-century government report on town life described a visit to a sick woman and. her infant who lived in one of these dreadful places: There was no light, no ventilation in it, and the air was dreadful. I had to walk on bricks across the floor to reach the bedside, as the floor itself was flooded with stagnant water.14

According to the sick woman's visitor there was nothing extraordinary about the situation. In towns where migration of the young and newly marrieds placed a special pressure on housing, the consequences of over• crowding were even more serious. In Preston 9 percent of houses contained more than one family. Most of the secondary families lived either in one room or one of the cellars described above. Thirty per cent of houses had more than seven occupants, and 56 per cent had more than five. The mean for the whole city was 6.1.This pressure made the sharing of beds a necessary requirement of urban living for some people. A 17 mid-century government report on living conditions in large urban centres showed that in one instance there were 1,500 cases in which three persons slept in one bed; 738 with four persons in one bed; 281 with five; ninety- four with six; two with eight; and thirty-one with no bed at all.16 The intimacy of these sleeping arrangements in which the sexes were not 17 always segregated, led both to incest and to promiscuity.

Though the working class, and especially the immigrant Irish element, have been blamed for the conditions in which observers found their homes, this criticism may not be justified. While it is undoubtedly true that some of the worst urban areas were occupied by neophyte urban dwellers from Ireland, at no time between 1841 and 1907 did the Irish- born population of England and Wales exceed 3 per cent of the total popu-

18 lation. More significantly, it appears from the recent studies of

Lancashire towns, and one must remember that Lancashire was the natural county of entry for the Irish, that the majority of working-class homes were kept as clean and as neat as was possible within the size of the 19 family budget. This good housekeeping, it must be pointed out, was carried out despite a lack of running water, few inside toilets, no out•

lets to the main sewage system, and the inhibiting influence of the . -, 20 Window Tax.

The lack of facilities that the average working-class home had must have influenced the health of children. The Window Tax, by causing the owners and managers of existing buildings to close up every window which was not absolutely necessary, and by inhibiting the design of new homes, must have affected the eyesight of several generations of children. 18

The fact that many cities like Manchester officially discouraged water- closets because of the strain they might put on municipal drainage and

21 sewage systems, caused the extensive use of communal privies. In the

City of Westminster, it was reported that there was on average one privy to every three families. However, there were some eighty-two examples 22 where at least twenty families used the same facility. There is little doubt that the use of such, the common practice of keeping animals in or near the home, and the extensive use of the horse as a method of urban transport, provided ideal breeding grounds for MuscaDomestica, the com• mon housefly. This insect must have represented a major factor in the spread of food-injested diseases among Victorians. The fact that most homes did not have running water, and that for part of the period under 23 study, there was a tax on soap, made personal hygiene difficult. The cost of washing materials led to some bizarre substitutions. One tech• nique prevalent amongst the poorer families- of northern England was the 24 use of urine as a substitute for washing soda in the removal of grease.

Personal hygiene was also.impeded by the number of changes of clothing an individual had. Drawings and photographs of working-class children

indicate they had few, and that what they had was ill-fitting and much patched. Though the early results of the medical inspections of school children do prove that children were as unwashed as they appeared, and that many had not had their clothes off for several months on end, these reports in themselves do not prove that the majority of working-class children were neglected by their parents. If anything, the fact that 25 their clothes were much patched proves the contrary. Nevertheless, 19 this failure to wash.jeopardized the health of many children. Climbing- boys, for example, who seem to have been particularly prone to scrotal cancer, were reported by one Royal Commission to have washed as infre- 26 quently as once in six months.

Another factor which had a direct bearing on the physical condi• tion and stature of children, as well as their ability to fend off disease,

27 was diet. As has already been indicated, a large section of the lower orders, in both the town and the country, was unable to purchase an ade• quate supply of food for the whole family. This made it necessary for 28 some members of the family to receive special treatment. Recent evidence

for the period after 1860 has come to light which clearly shows that

female members of the family often sacrificed their own health by giving part of their share of the family's food to the male breadwinners and the young children. Though there is also evidence to show that the very young were given special rations by their mothers, one can be sure that a multitude of Britain's working-class children suffered protein and vitamin deficiencies during the most important growing periods of their 29

life. The most obvious support for this contention is the prevalence of rickets in the major urban centres. Sir Jack Drummond has shown that

the affliction became known as the "English disease," and that it reached 30 severe proportions during the most rapid period of industrialization. By 1870 it was reported that as many as one-third of all poor children 31

in London and Manchester showed the characteristic signs.

Besides an inability to purchase sufficient food to sustain the

whole family, other factors impeded the achievement of an adequate 20 standard of family nutrition, even among the more well-to-do members of the working class. Because of the cost of fuel, cooking on a regular basis was an expensive business. This coupled with the fact that many urban homes were not equipped with cooking grates, ovens, and other utensils, had the effect of limiting the ways in which food could be pre• pared and made it impossible for many households to take full advantage 32 of the food that was bought. The problem of how to obtain a diet, sufficient in both quantity and quality, was further compounded by a general lack of knowledge of what constituted a balanced diet and an in• adequate understanding of many of the principles of domestic economy.

All these, plus the lack of time available to working women for cooking, led to the purchase of more expensive and less nutritious food than was necessary.

The trend towards female factory employment during the nineteenth century had immediate and disastrous affects on the health of the young.

Because it was a common practice for mothers to return to work as soon 33 as possible after giving birth, breast feeding fell into disfavour.

This led to a reliance on substitute milk. Not until late in the nine• teenth century were attempts made to ensure that cow's milk was both un• adulterated and uninfected. John Burnett has shown that prior to this time not only was milk often diluted, sometimes by as much as 50 per 34 cent, but that highly impure water was added. As a result, many of

Britain's infants were not only deprived of the best nutrition available to them and natural defences against disease, but were actually poisoned or infected at the same time. Another dangerous practice adopted by 21 working mothers was that of administering drugs to children in order to keep them quiet. Mixtures, such as Atkinson's Royal Infant's Preserva• tive, Godfrey's Cordial, and Mrs. Wilkinson's Soothing Syrup contained such narcotics as laudanum, morphia, and opium. The sale of such concoc• tions in factory districts was enormous. It was estimated that some

12,000 doses of Godfrey's Cordial were administered weekly in Coventry in 1862. In other towns, of which Nottingham is a good example, weekly doses were proportionally even higher. Even towards the end of the nine- 35 teenth century chemists were still selling opiates by the gallon. The results of the use of "quietness" according to Alexander Somers, a lecturer in one of the largest provincial hospitals, were that: Thousands of children so treated by those hired to care for them in the absence of their mothers lost flesh, colour and appetite, their skin was sallow and wrinkled, their features pinched and shrivelled, and they gradually pined away and died; others perished from the diseases of the brain; and some, after a larger dose than usual, fell into a profound sleep from which they never awoke.36

Alcohol consumption had both a direct and an indirect affect on the nutrition and health of children. In the first instance the consump• tion of alcohol by parents reduced the amount of money that could be spent on food for children. In the second place, the drinking of alcohol by children themselves appears to have been a relatively popular practice.

There was no law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to children until the 37 late 1880's, and drunkenness among children was widespread.

As a result of overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and inade• quate diets, death and disease were familiar callers at working-class homes. Life chances in the industrial centres were much lower than in 38 the smaller.provincial towns or in the countryside. In Preston, where the death-rate was thought to be the highest in the kingdom, only 44 per 39 cent of the people were still alive on their twenty-sixth birthday. This compared with a national life expectancy for those born about 1840 40 of forty-two. For the child to lose a brother or a sister or two be• fore he reached maturity was therefore only to be expected. In the

Staffordshire potteries and the Lancashire manufacturing districts, mor- 41 tality amongst the young was particularly high. In one local study 47 42 per cent of children died before their fifth birthday. Because of these high rates of child mortality one might expect a certain degree of parental indifference to have emerged. However, this does not appear to have been the case. There is much evidence to prove that parents grieved as heavily over the loss of each child as there is evidence to the con- 43 trary. Of one thing there is no doubt. The death of each child caused a considerable short-term burden to the family exchequer. Even the cost of child funerals about mid-century ran as high as one pound to 44

thirty shillings. Admittedly there were organizations which helped offset the cost of these emergencies. For instance, many families made use of burial clubs. Nevertheless, over the long-term it is probably

accurate to suggest that the aid given by one poor family to another in 45 times of crisis was much more important. In spite of the inaccuracies and the inconsistencies of nineteenth 46

century mortality and disease incidence statistics, there is no diffi•

culty in discerning the most pressing health problems facing working-

class families. By far the most important dangers to good health were 23 the infectious diseases. Between 1848 and 1872 some 7,517 per million 4' males and 7,232 per million females died annually from such infections. This meant that out of every thousand male and female deaths 338 and 48

321 died respectively.from one or other of the infectious diseases.

The most important of the infectious diseases was respiratory tubercu• losis. It killed more of both sexes than any other disease by a con• siderable margin.. More than.twice as many females died of phthisis as they did from the next most important cause of death, the throat dis- 49 tempers. These were followed by typhus and typhoid, other tubercular infections, whopping cough, measles, smallpox, cholera, and the lesser killers, influenza, dysentery, and syphilis.

As might be expected, infectious diseases were responsible for a particularly heavy death toll amongst children and teenagers. Death- rates for children between one and five years of age were stationary until 1870. Prior to that time scarlet fever was the most devastating disease. Also important were tubercular infections, and, of course, the childhood diseases whooping cough and measles.51 Boys and girls aged between five and fourteen were more likely to die of an infectious disease than anything else. Scarlet fever, as with younger children, was the principle killer. However, for this age-group it eliminated

twice as many individuals as did the second most deadly disease group

(typhus and typhoid). Respiratory tuberculosis, as well as other tuber- 52

cular infections, smallpox and cholera, also killed many. With teen•

agers and young adults (15-24 years of age) deaths from phthisis were

considerable. Before 1870 the disease killed two men in five and almost 24 five women in ten. The only other important cause of death for this age 53 group was typhus and typhoid.

The appalling risks to .working-class health that nineteenth cen• tury mortality statistics reflect were little offset by the services pro• vided by the medical profession. Large sections of the lower orders never saw a doctor from the time they were born until the time they died. Most were delivered into this world with only the aid of an untrained 54 midwife. Most departed with only family friends or close relatives to 55 comfort them. Only the more well-to-do members of the working class, and then nearly always only the male breadwinners,~"6 could obtain the services of a doctor on a regular basis. Higher paid workers sometimes 57 put money aside for health services. However, according to T. Ferguson these people were the exception rather than the rule: Only a small minority of people made any kind of provident arrange• ment to ensure the availability of medical care should they fall ill. Some were members of Medical Clubs, contributing a few coppers a week in return for which a doctor undertook to look after them when they were ill, some were members of Friendly Societies or Trade Unions that provided benefit; but these were in the main the. thriftier ele• ments in the population and for most working people illness was a catastrophe too terrible to contemplate.58

For the remainder who were not members of clubs, societies or unions, few alternatives were available. Almost to the end of the nineteenth century the services provided by the Poor Law authorities were extremely limited.

For the most part, treatment was restricted to those who were chronically infirmed and residents of the work house. This meant that few children saw the Poor Law Medical Officer, that adults only saw the doctor when their disease was well advanced, and that midwifery cases came under the parish doctor only when the local authorities approved.For those who did manage to see the Poor Law doctor, the treatment he could provide, even by mid-nineteenth century standards was limited. Not until 1864 were the Guardians allowed to dispense expensive medicines like quinine and cod-liver oil.60 The final authority for the provision of such

"medical extras" as high protein foods rested firmly with the Boards of

Guardians not the medical practitioner. Unfortunately the Boards tended to deny such forms of treatment on the grounds of cost, even though their medical staff warned them that such strengthening diets might have con• siderable beneficial effects on the recovery-rate of patients.^ Treat• ment under the Poor Law authorities was also hampered by the conditions of employment of doctors themselves.. There is no doubt that most parish doctors were extremely badly paid. According to Dr. J. A. Owles, the superintendent of the Liverpool Medical Mission, parish doctors struggled to build private practices because of their inadequate salaries, and few 62 had any inclination to do more than was absolutely necessary. The out• patient departments of the voluntary hospitals provided an alternative where institutional, treatment was not required. There, despite the fact

that charges were not usually made, the would-be patient was often asked

for a "subscriber's letter." Such letters were much abused and often

hard to come by.6^ Another alternative was the medical mission. Such

institutions sought to help two groups of people—those who were not

seriously ill and the very poor. They were particularly successful at

helping children. By comparison to the Poor Law Boards, the medical mis•

sions stressed both home nursing and medical extras. In this way the 26

mission doctors saw to it that their patients received the treatment

they needed. Beef, milk, tea, and other foods for the stomach, coal for

the fire, and blankets for the bed, were all supplied. At the same time

the needs of the whole family were taken into consideration. In addition,

the presence of the doctor or the mission nurse in the home helped spread 64

the gospel of hygiene and knowledge of domestic economy. Unfortunately,

these medical missions were only to be found in the larger towns. This

left the rural sick entirely at the mercy of the Poor Law medical ser•

vices. Even where there was a mission it was impossible for it to deal

extensively with the sick poor.

The worst misfortune that could overtake a working-class child was the death of one or both of his parents. In the major urban areas

where death-rates for all age-groups were highest, it is probable that

up to one-third of all children lost one parent before they were fifteen, 65

and of these perhaps a quarter lost two. The effects of such misfor•

tune on a child's welfare was potentially catastrophic. Families who

lost the main breadwinner experienced poverty more on a permanent than

a cyclical basis. Only when older children obtained well-paying jobs did

the family's conditions substantially improve. As a result, premature

death of a father made it necessary for those children who were fortunate

enough to be obtaining an education to leave school at the earliest pos•

sible opportunity. Though the death of the mother was financially less

disastrous to the family, it often endangered the child's mental and

physical health. It is probable that without the mother's additional in•

come many families were forced to move to less satisfactory accommodation. 27

Where there were no older female children the lost domestic expertise must have had a considerable effect on the standard of the family's diet.

Nevertheless, such misfortunes were often compensated for by the kindness of neighbours and relatives. Fortunately, it appears that such people came to a family's aid when a major breadwinner was sick or had recently died. A letter revealing the extent of such neighbourliness in Birming• ham about mid-century stated:

Day by day, yes and month by month, have I known the younger children of a sick and dying parent fed at different neighbours' tables, and fed willingly, as members of the family.66

As a result of close ties of kinship and strong bonds of neighbourliness, many children who lost their parents at an early age, were saved from the workhouse. Instead many found themselves living with their cousins or neighbours. For the most part, it appears that only those families who had moved away from their close relatives to seek their fortunes else• where and had not yet become fully fledged members of the community,

6 "7 were forced to enter the workhouse or to live as best they could.

II

During the nineteenth century the population of Britain increased

dramatically. In successive decades from 1851 to 1881 the population of

England and Wales grew by 12.3 per cent, 13.0 per cent, and 14.25 per

cent to a total of 8,047,000. This growth of population changed the age

structure of society. Contemporaries like Charles Booth thought the re•

sulting increase in the ratio of children to adults nothing less than 28

69 remarkable. The percentage of those under fifteen years of age rose from 35.4 per cent of the total population in 1851 (6,353,800) to 36.5 per cent in 1881 (9,468,200). A significant, but nevertheless, rela• tively small number of. those under fifteen worked regularly. In 1851 some 9.0 per cent, or 579,000 boys and girls, were gainfully employed.

At that time more than 200,000 were employed by textile, dyeing or dress• making firms; some 119,000 were employed to help on farms; more than

70,000 were gainfully employed as domestic servants; approximately 50,000 worked on ships or in the docks about the country; in excess of 30,000 children worked in mines; and a further 20,000 were employed in the metal

trades. Opportunities for girls existed mainly in only three of the major forms of employment open to juveniles. More than 85 per cent of

those in domestic service, approximately 55 per cent of those in textiles,

dyeing or dressmaking, and 11 per cent of those employed on farms, were

girls. It should be noted, however, that of all the children under fif- 70

teen only 6.3 per cent, or 41,900, were under ten years of age.

Between 1851 and 1881 employment opportunities for those under

fifteen, and particularly those under ten years of age, declined. In

England and Wales during the period 1861 to 1871, most industries began

to provide fewer jobs for those under fifteen. In Scotland this decrease

in job opportunities occurred a decade later. All over Britain a de•

crease in the employment of children under ten years of age occurred

earlier. Considerable reductions first took place between 1851 and 1861.

In the following decade the decline in the number of jobs was more marked.

By the 1871 Census almost half as many children under ten years of age 29 were working as there had been twenty years before.

Despite the fact that child labour was decreasing, and never more than one child in ten was a regular member of the labour force after mid-century, the effect of working conditions on children is still worth considering. There is little doubt that the working conditions of the half million that were employed every yeary. were often harsh. Even be• fore the child started work there was sometimes a long walk to be made before reaching the place of employment. Though the town child often had to walk several miles each day it seems likely that those who worked in agriculture travelled greater distances. The 1867 Report on the Condi• tions of Women and Children in Agriculture gives evidence to this effect.

A Mrs. Adams of Denton, Huntingdonshire, reported to the commissioners:

In June 1862 my daughters Harriet and Sarah, aged respectively eleven and thirteen years, were engaged to work on Mr. Warman's land at Stilton. When they got there, he took them to near Peterborough; there they worked for six weeks, going and returning each day. The distance each way is eight miles, so they had to walk sixteen miles each day on all the six working days of the week, besides working in the field from 8 to 5, or 5:30, in the afternoon. They used to start from home at five in the morning, and seldom got back before nine. They had to find all their own meals, as well as: their own tools. They were good for nothing at the end of six weeks. The ganger per• suaded me to send my little girl Susan, who was then six years of age. She walked all the way (eight miles) to Peterborough, and worked from 8 to 5:30, and received fourpence. She was that tired that her sis• ters had to carry her the best part of the way home—eight miles, and she was ill from it for three weeks, and never went again.^1

Despite these severe conditions, those that worked in the open air were often much better off than those who were employed underground or inside.

In factories unguarded machines often mangled and sometimes killed chil• dren who got in the way of the moving parts. As well, a lack of ventilation 30 ventilation and high humidity encouraged the spread of infections. In the mines where dangerous conditions were always present and work was 72 particularly arduous, dampness and sunlight deprivation reaped their toll on the physique and constitutions of the young. It is also likely that mining had damaging psychological consequences for the young employee.. There is evidence to show that many young children were left 73 all alone for hours on end to do their jobs in complete darkness.

Throughout the spectrum of nineteenth century industry long hours of labour with few or no breaks for rest or food were the accepted norm.

This was in line with contemporary economic thought, as some leading economists believed that it was only in the last hour of work that profits were made. Despite the fact that members of the medical profession sug• gested greater output could be obtained if there were more rest breaks, long hours of labour with the minimum of rest periods continued nearly everywhere.

Apart from walking long distances to their place of employment and then having to work long hours in unsanitary conditions. often on an inadequate diet, children were subjected to direct forms of cruelty by their employers. In many instances these cruelties helped undermine the young employee's health. In the case of boy chimney sweeps, and there were as many as 2,000 of them between five and ten years of age in 1864, 75 a common practice was to harden their limbs in brine. Digby Seymour reported to the House of Commons of 30 April 1864, that: In many cases the flesh did not harden for years. By that fearful training their bodies were deformed and their backs often covered all over with sores. The "sooty cancer" also prevailed amongst these 31

children, who had to sleep nine and twelve in a bed in the most foetid atmosphere . . • . There was a regular system established in this country for the hire and sale of children for the purpose of carrying on that illegal and cruel occupation . . . .^6

Even as late as March 1875, the Times reported the death of a boy named

Brewster at the Fullorn Lunatic Asylum and expressed its concern that 77 this cruel form of. employment might be increasing. In mines there is much evidence to show that the butties and the corporals beat and kicked the young workers under their command. Sadly it was often the weakest 78 children who received the most severe beatings.

Besides wage-labour there were other avenues open to working- class children. For the family that became destitute, the Poor Law, with all its undesirable social stigmas, was always available. Following the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 Boards of Guardians were given the responsibility for differentiating between those who were unable to sup• port themselves because of physical incapacity and those that merely did not have sufficient funds to support themselves on a regular basis. The

law with regard to the physically incapable was relatively benevolent.

It allowed the authorities to provide outdoor relief. By contrast the

law was particularly harsh to the families of the able-bodied poor. For

them the only alternative was the workhouse. On appearing at the work• house gates families were immediately split up—husbands from wives: parents from children. The diet inside was plain, monotonous and inade•

quate. Normally it consisted of nothing more than broth or gruel and

dried bread or potatoes. Occasionally, small amounts of bread and cheese 79 were made available. Apart from an inadequate diet which made children 32 less able to fend off infectious diseases, conditions inside the red- bricked "bastilles," as the workhouses were known, were unlikely to en• hance child health. Reports available reveal that some of them were 80 ideal places for spreading disease. In addition, there were many in• stances of blatent cruelty. Boys and girls were frequently flogged.

There was even a case reported of a two-and-a-half year old child being 81 forced to eat his own excrement for dirtying himself.

For those who neither found employment nor received financial aid

from the Poor Law Authorities or private charities, illicit occupations still remained as an alternative. As late as 1876 Dr. Barnardo estimated that in London alone there were at least 30,000 neglected children under 82 sixteen sleeping out. There seems little doubt that many of these survived through criminal means. This was despite the fact that nine• teenth-century justice inflicted heavy penalties on juvenile criminals.

Even so, many children found that a criminal way of life had advantages.

Mary Carpenter, a person much interested in lower-class juvenile crime and prison reform, reported: Their present mode of life is so lucrative and so pleasant, that they will not exchange it for another apparently presenting far greater advantage. Their filth and rags are no annoyance to them, for they are the implements of their trade; the cold and the hunger which they continually endure are most amply compensated by an occasional luxurious meal. The close and noisome dens in which they are stowed at night present nothing revolting to their feelings, and they prefer them to a clean abode where they must resign their occu• pation and some portion of their liberty.^3

J. J. Tobias, a historian specifically interested in nineteenth century

crime, has concluded that while these children may often have been cold, 33 wet, uncared for, or unloved, they enjoyed a more varied and adventurous life than their honest contemporaries. In addition, Tobias has suggested that their conditions of "work" were often compensated for by times of plenty in which they could eat and drink to their heart's content amongst pleasant company.

There is little doubt that boys and girls of the criminal classes were promiscuous from a relatively early age. Reports are available which clearly show that girls of no more than fourteen years of age could not remember their first intercourse. In addition, it is known that some young criminals spent their- ill-gotten gains on prostitution. As a re• sult, it is not surprising that venereal diseases were contracted by twelve-year olds, that some brothels specifically catered to children, 85 and that some young criminals actually lived with prostitutes. How•

ever, it seems unlikely that most child prostitutes lived in brothels.

What seems probable is that the majority lived with their parents some distance away from the area they "worked" and were forced to bring home 86 most of the illegal earnings. This state of affairs would explain why child brothels were never a major target for investigation. Kellow

Chesney has suggested: More than any other class of prostitutes, they seem to have been the product of the rookeries, conditioned to depravity before they ever took to hawking themselves on the streets. In fact the degredations, and above all the overcrowding, of the worst slums led to an indis• criminate sexuality that defies comment. One may read of a man con• victed of outraging a small child begotten by himself on his own daughter. Born in such an environment, brought up to fight for exis• tence by every means at hand, habituated to pain and brutality, it is no wonder if some of those children were ready to exploit their one readily cashable asset.^7 34

Unlike other forms of child employment which decreased as social condi• tions improved, child prostitution increased as the nineteenth century

88 drew to a close.

The overall decline in.child labour had both positive and nega• tive affects on the well-being of British working-class children. In families where the total family income was close to the poverty line the withdrawal of child labour probably had a detrimental effect on the

family's diet and on other essentials like heating and perhaps housing.

However, because many children no longer had.to face the daily dangers to life and limb and suffer the unhealthy conditions, cruelties and physical stress in factories and mines, it is highly likely that many more children had the opportunity to develop better physiques and consti•

tutions than would otherwise have been possible.

Ill

During the nineteenth century legislation affected the social

and economic status of children in at least four different ways. Changes

in the way the State might punish.its young offenders had the effect of

raising the age of that group of individuals which had less-than-adult

status.- By the early part of.the nineteenth century English Common Law

had provided two social groups with a special immunity against punishment.

Infants under seven years of age were considered as being incapable of

felonious intent. For children between seven and fourteen years of age

there was a presumption against felonious intent. However, a Victorian

legal authority, W. Clarke Hall, has shown that evidence "tending to show deliberation was sufficient to prove such intent.""^ As a result, the severest of penalties were suffered by children of seven or more years.

However, starting with the Youthful Offenders Act of 1854, which repre• sented according to Mathew Davenport Hill, the Recorder of Birmingham, 90 91 the Magna Carta for juvenile delinquents, a series of Acts, by estab• lishing special forms of treatment for juveniles, separated the young offender from the mature criminal.

Though employers had long since recognized the difference between adult workers and the younger members of the working classes by the v amount of money they were prepared to put into their wage packets, a

series of Acts of Parliament, inspired more by a concern for the morals of children than for their health or physical condition, further defined

the younger worker's less-than-adult status. By 1870 legislation had been passed which affected most of the major forms of juvenile employ•

ment with the exception of domestic service. Factories were not per• mitted to employ anyone under eight years of age and those under

thirteen were restricted to a set number of hours. Women and young

children had been completely banned from working underground in mines,

while boys between twelve and sixteen years of age were restricted in

the number of hours they might work per day and per week. No agricul•

tural gangs were allowed to employ any child under eight years of age

and the distances that youngsters might walk per day were restricted.

In addition, some particularly nasty and dangerous forms of employment,

such as chimney-sweeping, were placed off-limits to juveniles as old as

fifteen. 36

The Education Acts of the 1870s and 1880 which were passed largely to "compel our future masters to learn their letters" and to pro• vide a supply of workers with the necessary skills for the new forms of industry, further helped to define this less-than-adult status. The 1876

Act, by making it no longer possible for farmers to employ children under ten years of age, dealt a death blow to the agricultural gang system and largely put an end to the worst excesses of juvenile agricul• tural labour. The 1880 Act, by making education compulsory for all children between the ages of five and ten years of age, and by making it necessary for any child between ten and thirteen years of age to possess a leaving certificate before he or she could start work, completed the picture.

Changes in the laws affecting the relationship between the parent and the child, by limiting the powers of the parents and delineating specific duties towards their offspring, began to provide children with an independent status. In this regard the Acts preventing cruelty to children and those stipulating powers of adoption and custody were of particular importance. The prevention of Cruelty to Children Act of

1889 was rightly referred to in the Houses of Parliament as the Children's

Charter. Not only was it a particularly effective measure for dealing with parents who willfully mistreated, neglected or abandoned their children, but it also prompted the idea of specific civil rights for

children beyond those of freedom from physical cruelty and neglect.

IV

Certain conclusions may be drawn from the preceding discussion 37 of the social and economic conditions experienced by working-class chil• dren and the legislative changes which had a bearing on their childhood.

Prior to 1870 a good deal of concern had manifested itself about the moral welfare of children and the more blatant forms of physical cruelty

inflicted upon them. This does not imply, however, that nobody cared

about the general health and social conditions of children. It is a well-

established fact that the middle and upper classes held their offspring

92

in high esteem. They were quite prepared to spend considerable sums

on their children's behalf. The middle class, for example, made consider•

able sacrifices by spending large sums on education. At the other end

of the social scale the working class also made sacrifices for their

children. Neighbours and relatives fed, clothed, and sheltered needy

children. Working mothers often went without food so that their chil•

dren would not go hungry. There is, in fact, little evidence..to suggest

that it was any more than a small group of working-class parents who

unduly, chastized or persecuted.their children. There is also little

evidence which contradicts the view that only a small group amongst the

upper and middle classes concerned themselves, to any large extent,

about the social and physical conditions of working-class children.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt that from about the third quarter of

the nineteenth century onwards a profound shift in the status of working-

class children occurred.

The nature of this new status for working-class children was com•

plex and at times paradoxical. Prior to the 1870s, the Factory Acts and

the new laws relating to the punishment of juvenile criminals tended to 38

isolate working-class children and place them in a less-than-adult world.

From at least the middle of the nineteenth century the economic value of working-class children to society as workers, declined seriously. Fewer and fewer of them were needed to man the major commercial and industrial

enterprises of Britain: Only in the service industries was there any

continued demand. In a strictly Marxist sense, the children of the working class were ceasing to be members of the proletariat. However,

at the same time, the very scientific and technological advances which

had caused a decrease in the number of child workers required, also

demanded that a new type of adult worker be produced. This new adult worker had to be able to read instructions, evaluate costs, measure

weights, and to calculate angles. It was in response to this demand,

and in conjunction with the perceived need of the upper classes to edu•

cate the newly enfranchised members of the working class in the estab•

lished ways of liberal democracy that the Education Act of 1870 was

passed. : While the value of working-class children had fallen to practi•

cally nothing in current market terms, their value as future citizens

and mature workers had become considerable. This shift in attitude to•

wards the working-class child, and the provision of a special status

which accompanied it, tend to explain the development by the State, of

protective measures to ensure the health and welfare of children which

followed the Education Act of 1870. It should be noted that some of

these measures were specifically geared to make the child independent of

his parents. In fact, certain rights of working-class parents were sacri•

ficed in order to ensure a full complement of workers for Britain's 39

future. As a result, the suggestion that the Education Act was the starting point of the modern concept of the child and was the benevolent opening of Pandora's box, is misleading. While the Education Act of

1870 was a reflection of the new special status of working-class chil• dren, it more closely represented the starting point of the modern con• cept of the new British worker. The Education Act was not the opener of Pandora's box, but merely one of the prizes found within. 40

FOOTNOTES

± Such an approach was promised but not fulfilled by Ivy Pinch• beck and Margaret Hewitt: see the preface to their two volume work, Chil• dren in English Society. Kenneth Charlton's review of Pinchbeck and Hewitt's second volume, Children in English Society, from the Eighteenth Century to the Children Act of 1948 (London, 1973), pp. 347-671, in the British Journal of Educational Studies, 21 (1974), 227-28, stated: "this second volume is very much cast in the mould of the first, sharing that volume's lack of an adequately detailed bibliography, and showing little of the 'sociological1 approach which the authors claimed in the preface to the whole work." 2 See Michael Anderson, Family Structure m Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971); and J. 0. Foster, Capitalism and Class Con• sciousness in Early Nineteenth Century Oldham (Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni• versity of Cambridge, 1967). 3 Anderson, pp. 31-32. 4 See David C. Marsh, The Changing Social Structure of England and Wales, 1871-1961 (London, 1965), p. 41, and A. M. Carr-Saunders, D. Caradog Jones, and C. A. Moser, A. Survey of Social Conditions in England and Wales as Illustrated by Statistics (Oxford, 1958), pp. 22-32, and J. W. Innis, Class Fertility Trends in England and Wales, 1876-1934 (Princeton, 1938), pp. 65-66. 5 Foster, p. 284. ^ See Ivy Pinchbeck, Women Workers and the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850 (London, 1930), p. 105. 7 See J. A. Banks, "Population Change and the Victorian City," Victorian Studies, 11 (1968), 286. 8 "Report on Women and Children in Agriculture," Parliamentary Papers, xii (1843), 19-20: cited by Pinchbeck, p. 105. 9 In England and Wales the population more than doubled between 1841 and the turn of the century. It was 15,914,148 in 1841. By 1901 the population had reached 32,527,843. This data which is based on Census returns is cited in Banks, p. 277. In 1801, London was the only centre with more than 100,000 inhabitants. By 1841 there, were six..such-. cities; by the end of the century there were thirty. In 1801, there were five urban centres with more than 50,000 inhabitants; twenty-two in 1841; and forty-nine in 1901. For data on town size see W. Page, Com• merce and Industry: Tables of Statistics for the British Empire from 1815 (London, 1919), pp. 4-29. 41

For a discussion of how contemporaries thought people migrated see E. G. Ravenstein, "The Laws of Migration," Journal of the Royal Sta• tistical Society, 48 (1885), 167-227. See Banks, for a discussion of some of the social problems connected with migration.

11 For a discussion of urbanization in England and Wales see D. Friedlander, "The Spread of Urbanization in England and Wales, 1851-1891," Population Studies, 24 (1970), 423-43.

Anderson, p. 33. 1 ^ See John A. Jackson, The Irish in Britain (London, 1963), p. 45.

14 The report in question was The Second Report on the Condition of Large Towns and is cited in ibid., p. 45. 15 See Anderson, p. 33. 16 This data is extraced from The Second Report on the Condition of Large Towns as cited by Jackson, p. 45. 17 The suggestion that incest was common was one of the claims made in the anonymous publication, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Enquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor (1883). 18 See Banks, p. 286. 19 This claim is made by Anderson, p. 34. He suggests that de• scriptions of cottages can be found in S. Bamford, Walks in South Lanca• shire and on its Borders (Manchester, 1844); E. Waugh, Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine (Manchester, 1881); W. A. Abram, "Social Condi• tion and Political Prospects of the Lancashire Workman," Fortnightly Review, NS, 4 (1868), 426-41. 20 According to George Richardson's evidence (Appendix Pt. II, p. 134) given to the Commissioners of The Second Report on the Condition of Large Towns, the practice of closing up every window not absolutely necessary for light was quite prevalent in some large towns. See Jackson, p. 44. 21 See G. Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-1871 (London, 1971), p. 23. 22 See "Report of the Committee of the Statistical Society of London on the State of the Working Classes in the Parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 3 (1840), 14-24. 23 See R. Hodgekinson, "The Social Environment of British Medical 42

Science and Practice in the Nineteenth Century," in W. C. Gibson (ed.)/ British Contributions to Medical Science (London, 1971), p. 31. 24 See Second Report on the Condition of-Large Towns as cited by Jackson, p. 53. 25 It has become common practice to assume that because children were so often dirty and wore ill-fitting and much patched clothing that they were neglected. The fact that working mothers spent time patching their children's clothing, over and over again, may well indicate a great deal of concern for children. The fact that children were so often unwashed and unfed may, in its nineteenth century context, be more indic• ative of a lack of knowledge concerning personal hygiene, of ignorance of the principles of domestic economy, and a lack of family funds, than of neglect or cruelty on the part of parents. 26 See W. B. Ellis, Health and Childhood (London, 1960), p. 74; he does not cite the Royal Commission to which he refers. 27 For a discussion of the nutritional needs and the problems caused by dietary deficiencies see ibid., pp. 163-90, or World Health Organization, Nutrition and Infection, 314 (Geneva, 1965) . 28 See particularly, Laura Owen, "The Welfare of Women in Labour• ing Families: England 1860-1950," Feminist Studies, 3/4 (Winter/Spring, 1973), pp. 107-25. 29 Pinchbeck and Hewitt, p. 631 have noted that "before the 1880's, remarkably little was known-about the physical conditions of the majority of children in this country. Such evidence as did exist was largely contained in the various Reports df the Children's Employment Commission, and this was largely related to the effects of certain trades and occupations on children's health and physique and thus not applicable to the conditions of children in general." Nevertheless, they point out that the relationship between nutrition, good health and physique had been noted at least by the I860"s. In 1867 Dr. Edward Smith wrote in his "Report on the Inferiority of Workhouse Dietaries," which formed part of the Twentieth Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, Parliamentary Papers (1967-68), XXXIII: "It is not, perhaps, well appreciated that up to adult life each period is devoted to a particular part of growth, and if for any cause, the growth does not occur, the evil is irremedial. Hence the great responsibility of those who have the power to withhold or to supply food in childhood and youth" (p. 59). 30 See Sir Jack Drummond and Anne Wilbraham, The Englishman's Food: A History of Five Centuries of English Diet (London, 1958), p. 151. 31 Ibid., p. 380. For example, nourishing stews could not be made. 43

33 For a discussion of the decline in breast feeding see Margaret Hewitt, Wives and Mothers in Victorian Industry (London, 1958), Chapters VIII-X. See especially her Appendix III, p. 224 which details comparative mortality between breast and hand-fed infants. 34 See John Burnett, Plenty and Want: A Social History of Diet in England from 1815 to the Present Day (London, 1966), p. 142 and 259. 35 See Hewitt, chapter X, pp. 141-52. 36 This lecture was reported in British Parliamentary Papers, XXII (1864), p. 630, and is cited in ibid., p. 145. 37 See Pinchbeck and Hewitt, p. 349. 38 For a discussion of the differences between urban and rural mortality-rates see D. V. Glass, "Some Indicators of the Differences between Urban and Rural Mortality in England and Wales," Population Studies, 17 (1964), pp. 263-67. 39 See Anderson, p. 34. 40 See Carr-Saunders, Caradog Jones, and Moser, p. 220. The life expectancy of women was slightly greater than for men. 41 See E. E. Lampard, "The Urbanizing World," in H. J. Dyes and M. Wolff (eds.), Victorian Cities: Images and Realities (London, 1973), p. 24. 42 See Anderson, p. 34. 43 See ibid., p. 69. 44 See Jackson, p. 53. 45 See Anderson, pp. 138 and 147. 46 No figures were published by the government before 1898 on disease incidence. Mortality statistics, while available for the period under study have their drawbacks. Scarlet fever and diphtheria were often confused. Distinction was made statistically in 1855 but final ambiguity was not removed until after Loffler had identified the diph• theria bacillus in 1884. The distinction between typhus and typhoid was first drawn in 1869 but inaccuracies in diagnosis prevailed until much later in the century. With the case of tuberculosis, positive iden• tification was often impossible without the use of X-Ray machines and bacteriological methods of identifying the bacillus.

47 See W. P. D. Logan, "Mortality in England and Wales from 1848- 1947," Population Studies, 4 (September 1950), p. 140. 44

48 See Logan, p. 40. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.

51 See ibid., p. 148,.and A. H. Gale, "A Century of Changes in Mortality and Incidence of Principal Infections of Childhood," Archives of Diseases of Childhood, 29 (1945),6.

Logan, p. 149.

53 Ibid., pp. 154, 156-57. 54 See A. Daley and B. Benjamin, "London a Case Study," Popula• tion Studies, 17 (March 1964), p..255. Midwifery did not become a neces• sary area of study for doctors until 1886. "55 There is literary evidence to support the prevalence of this sort of good neighbourliness. In Elizabeth Gaskell's Mary Barton: A Tale of Manchester Life (London, 1972), chapter six, Barton, himself out of work at the time, pawned.his "better coat, and his one gay, red-and- yellow silk pocket handkerchief" which were his "jewels, his plate, his valuables" so that he could buy meat, bread, candles, and coal for the Davenport family. At the same time Wilson took the two older children to be looked after by his wife. Nevertheless, Davenport died from typhoid fever without seeing a doctor. ^ There were exceptions to this general rule. The Dorset Friendly Society had rates for medical attendance for all members of the family: member 2/6d; wife.2/-; 1/- for the first three children and 9d for any other children. See R. H. J. H. Gosden,- The Friendly Societies in England, 1815-1875 (Manchester, 1961), p. 147. 57 According to ibid., by 1884 there were forty-two Medical Aid Associations containing some 164,000 members. Not all Friendly Socie• ties provided a medical benefit. Thus there is a considerable discrep• ancy between the membership of Friendly Societies and the number of people with medical coverage. Gosden, Self-Help: Voluntary Associations in Great Britain (New York 1974), p. 112, the annual payments by the Societies was 3/- per patient. 58 T. Ferguson, "Public Health in Britain in the Climate of the Nineteenth Century," Population Studies, 17 (March 1964), 215. 59 See K. J. Heaseman, "The Medical Mission and the Care of the Sick Poor in Nineteenth Century England," The Historical Journal, 7 (1964), 243. 60 See Maurice Bruce, The Coming of the Welfare State (London 1968), p. 119. 45

See J. L. Brand, Doctors and the State: The British Medical Profession and Government Action in Public Health, 1870-1912 (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 85 and 93.

62 Heaseman, pp. 242-43. 63 Ibid., p. 231. 64 Ibid., pp. 230-45. 65 See Anderson, p. 148. 66 Ibid.

67 See ibid., pp. 148-49. Anderson has maintained: "This adop• tion of orphans then is probably one major factor explaining the presence in so many households of the odd grandchildren, nieces and nephews and siblings . . . and particularly their presence in the houses of childless widows. It is worth noting that Foster found similar proportions in all his towns, and this is probably one important explanation." 68 See Charles Booth, "Occupations of the United Kingdom, 1801- 1881," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 49 (June 1886), 314-435. The figures are Booth's unless otherwise stated. 69 Ibid. 70 B. R. Mitchell and Phyllis Deane, Abstract of British Histor• ical Statistics (Cambridge, 1971), p. 59. 71 Report cited in W. C. Hall, The Queen's Reign for Children (London, 1897), pp. 57-58. 72 The body is able to produce vitamin D when regularly exposed to sunlight from its precursor argosterol. In occupations where sunlight is deprived a lack of vitamin D may be serious when the vitamin is also lacking from the family diet. 73 See Hall, p. 44. 74 See Dr. E. Smith, Health and.Disease As Influenced by Daily, Seasonal and Other Cyclical Changes in the Human System (London, 1861), passim. 75 Hall, p. 29. 76 . Cited in ibid.

77 Ibid., p. 30.

•7Q Ibid., pp. 47-50. 46

79 See Kellow Chesney, The Victorian Underworld (London, 1970), p. 18; J. F. C. Harrison, The Early Victorians, 1832-1851 (London, 1973), p. 109.

80 See Chesney, p. 20. 81 See Harrison, p. 110.

82 See J. J. Tobias, Crime and Industrial Society in the Nine- teenth Centuryury (London, 19721972)) ,, p. c.9 6 83 Quoted in ibid., p. 102. 84 See ibid., p. 103.

85 See Tobias, p. 101; Chesney, p. 387; and. R. Pearsall, The Worm in the Bud: The World of Victorian Sexuality (London, 1972), pp. 358-66. 86 Chesney, p. 387. 87 Ibid.

88 See Pearsall, p. 365, for an illustration of the expansion of child prostitutioitutionn in IBirmingham . 89 Hall, p. 89. 90 Pinchbeck and Hewitt, pp. 351-52. 91 I.E. Summary Jurisdiction Act (1879); Probation of First Offendors (1887); Youthful Offenders (1901); Probation Act (1907); Chil• dren's Act (1908). 92 See, for example, F. Musgrove, "Population Changes and the Status of the Young in England since the Eighteenth Century," Socio• logical Review, 11 (1963), p. 71. He remarks: "By 1881 the young were never so abundant and never so protected. (Never before had they been so richly displayed—in Little Lord Fauntleroy outfits, sailor suits and Eton collars.)." For a more detailed discussion of the importance of children to the upper classes see, J. A. Banks, Prosperity and Parent• hood: A Study of Family Planning Among the Victorian Middle Class (London, 1954), passim. 47

CHAPTER II

CHANGES IN HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS IN LATE-VICTORIAN BRITAIN:

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ROLE OF "EXPERTS" IN

IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF CHILDREN

It is quite wrong to assume that the Elementary Education Acts

) of the 1870's and 1880's were ultimately responsible for initiating a series of special services to improve the health and welfare of children.

Not only can it be argued that some of the measures selected actually had earlier origins than the Education Act of 1870, but it can be shown

that some of the ensuing legislation had little or. nothing to do with

children being at school. To evaluate correctly how and why child health services developed, and, more important, why they emerged when

they did, consideration must be given to such factors as: the extent of medical knowledge (particularly with reference to nutrition, school

hygiene, and child psychology); the influence of religious beliefs and

the moral code implicit in the Poor Law; the availability of funds and

the degree of authority exerted by central government over local author•

ities; and the impact of changing attitudes towards the inviolability of

the home, self-help, and the relationship between parents and children;

as well as the influence of socialism and the impact of bodies represen•

ting working-class interests on the political process.

This chapter looks at the period of forty years from 1860 to

1900 and attempts to show how the special services to enhance the health

and welfare of children were institutionalized by law and voluntary 48 programmes. Prior to elementary education being made compulsory in 1880 the institutionalization of child health had depended more on the work of doctors and a few individuals with a specific interest in the problem than on party politics. From the early 1880's this state of affairs changed dramatically. Two factors lay behind this change. First, largely as the result of the actions of London's casual poor, middle- class fears of violence were intensified. These fears, in conjunction with the formation of the Independent Labour Party and other socialist groups, ensured that the demands of the British working man would not only be brought to the attention of the upper classes but would receive a favourable hearing. The other factor was A. J. Mundella's revision of the Education Code of 1882. As a result, this chapter has been broken down into two distinct parts, one describing the events occurring before

1880, the other describing the activities of the period 1880 to 1900.

I

Punishments of juvenile offenders were steadily softened from

quite early in the nineteenth century; the conditions of child employment were improved from almost the same time; but state intervention to pre•

vent child abuse came much later. To all intents and purposes the

Englishman's home, whether it was the stately home of one of Britain's

large landowners or the squalid hovel of an unemployed, drunken farm

labourer, was his castle. There his powers over his wife were great,

and those over his children greater. Prior to 1870 there were only two

provisions under which the Grown could intervene on behalf of children. 49

The first concerned children who became wards of a court. Here the law often intervened between the parent and the child to protect the property rights of the child. The second arose where a child's death was found to be due to a failure to provide medical attention or sufficient food. The parents could be found guilty of manslaughter. But it proved much harder to enforce.

In fact, it was only through action to prevent child neglect by

third parties that the authorities were alerted to the problem of the

infant death-rate and child abuse generally. In the first instance the

spur to this quickening of social consciousness came from the dissemina•

tion of convincing information about baby-farming. Prior to the notorious

Waters and Ellis trial of 1870 the medical profession had begun a cam• paign to control this practice. At the instigation of its honorary sec•

retary, Dr. J. D. Curgenven, the Harveian Society had appointed a

committee of investigation. This committee was responsible for placing a

series of recommendations before the Home Secretary in January of 1867.

Unfortunately, the Government declined to take any action at this time.

Undaunted by this initial set-back the medical profession continued to

apply pressure. Dr. Curgenven himself read papers before the influential

annual conferences of the National Association for the Promotion of

Social Science in both 1867 and 1869.1 In both instances resolutions

were passed to end the evils of baby-farming. In 1868, Dr. Ernest Hart,

the editor of the British Medical Journal published a series of articles

on the subject. These were responsible for prompting the "children's

champion," Lord Shaftesbury, to bring the matter up in the House of Lords. 50

Encouraged by the support not only of his own society and the NAPSS but also of the British Medical Journal and Lord Shaftesbury, Dr. Curgenven set about establishing a society to pressure the Government into legisla• tive action. This as it turned out was formed even before the Waters and Ellis trial was completed and was responsible for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Protection of Infant Life and the eventual introduction of the Infant Life Protection Bill by the Salford Member of

Parliament, W. T. Charley, in February of 1871. Though the Act contained no overly stringent regulations, and advertisements for "adoption" con• tinued to appear, this represented an important precedent for child rights and an important step in the protection of the health of very young children.

Despite the claims by Lord Shaftesbury that parental cruelties 2 were "enormous" and "indesputable," and statements by Dr. Barnardo that 3 there were more than 30,000 homeless and destitute children in London, no direct restrictions on parental rights were made for more than ten years. Shaftesbury's own beliefs concerning the inviolability of indi• vidual authority in domestic matters is illustrative of the sense of helplessness that many of those who wished to outlaw all forms of child abuse must have felt. While he was well aware that public attitudes could normally be changed by private groups revealing detailed information of

terrible conditions, he continued to believe that parental cruelty was

of "so private, internal and domestic a character as to be beyond the reach of legislation" and that such a topic would not be entertained by 4 either House. 51

As with the case of the physically abused child, interest in physically and mentally defective children preceded the Elementary Educa•

tion Act of 1870. However, in this instance the interest was of longer

standing. It was not in conflict with parental rights; nor was concern

for the physically or mentally incapable in conflict with the moral code

embodied in the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

Though a special school for the deaf had been opened by Thomas

Braidwood in Edinburgh as early as the 1760's, it was blindness which

first captured the public imagination and was able to tap the coffers of

the philanthropically-minded. At first, people assumed that the blind

were incapable of fending for themselves and, consequently, were doomed

to be dependent on the sighted. In fact, very few options were thought

to be open to the blind. Either they had to be supported by relatives,

friends, or a pension from some benevolent society, or they had to rely

on begging. It was because begging was considered socially unacceptable

that the impoverished blind received tacit recognition of the helpless•

ness of their state and were not subjected to the ordinary means test or

the rigours of out-relief normally ascribed to the able-bodied poor under

the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act.

Between 1850 and 1875 this attitude towards the blind began to

change. Behind this shift in social consciousness lay the work of people

like Elizabeth Gilbert. Blind since a severe attack of scarlet fever at

the age of three, Elizabeth Gilbert was responsible for persuading many

of those in authority to believe that blind people were not necessarily

social parasites. Public recognition of this fact came with the passing 52

of the Education and Maintenance of Pauper Children in Certain Schools

5 and Institutions Act of 1862. This Act empowered Boards of Guardians

to maintain, clothe, and educate the blind children of pauper parents in

special schools providing that the cost involved did not exceed the amount

required to keep them in the workhouse. In only a few years the applica•

tion of the self-help principle to the blind was complete. By 1886 the

Home Teaching Society was able to state in its annual report:

There are many disadvantages attendant on the giving of pensions to the young and able-bodied blind. Often a small dole or pension en• tirely destroys the efforts which the blind might otherwise be in• duced to make towards self-help.^

Unfortunately, the deaf were unable to evoke the same level of

public sympathy as the blind. The cause of this failure lay in the nature

of the defect itself. Though an individual might look normal in every

respect, his failure to hear what was said led initially to an inability

to communicate. It was for this reason that in the early years of the

nineteenth century the deaf were dispatched along with the idiots and

7

imbeciles to the lunatic asylums. Nevertheless, several special schools

for the deaf were established before 1870 through voluntary contributions,

and Boards of Guardians, through the 1862 Pauper Children Act, were

given the authority to send deaf children to them subject to the same

cost restrictions that were imposed on blind children.

By comparison with either the blind or the deaf, children who

suffered from either mental or other physical defects attracted much less

attention in the period before 1870. In the case of those who were

physically defective this is particularly surprising. Not only did the early employment commissions and popular novelists like Charles Dickens draw attention to those who had suffered industrial injuries or were born with a debility, but we now know that rickets was particularly com• mon among the child populations of the major urban centres. Neverthe• less, at no time during the nineteenth century did the child who through accident, inheritance, or malnutrition became physically incapable of

leading a normal life, become the central figure of a government report.

Nor was it until the last decade of the nineteenth century that he be- Q

came a. major topic of concern among the philanthropically-minded. It

seems reasonable to conclude that the reason little attention was paid

to such children was the total lack of medical expertise concerning 9 orthopaedic treatment.

Those with mental defects were only slightly luckier. Though it was possible to collect out-relief for the mentally defective child who

lived at home, most—whether they were merely feeble-minded or epileptic

—went with the idiot and the imbecile to the lunatic asylum. Unfor•

tunately, despite the fact that one report to the 1860 Select Committee

on the Care and Treatment of Lunatics mentioned the existence of "a 10

department of psychological medicine" at one such institution, and it

was generally acknowledged that there existed both a strong urge to cure

the insane as well as a belief that early treatment could produce radi•

cally beneficial results, places housing the mentally defective were

seldom more than merely custodial centres. An opportunity to change

this situation had come with the passing of the 1862 Act which had

allowed Boards of Guardians to maintain feeble-minded, but not "imbecile" 54

or "idiot" children, at special schools. However, because the Education and Maintenance of Pauper Children Act was only permissive, and the num• ber of special schools small, its effect was very limited.11

In the years which followed the Elementary Education Act of 1870 interest in physically and mentally defective children became more urgent and comprehensive. In 1874 two important steps were taken. One was the decision of the London School Board to establish special classes for the blind and the deaf children of the metropolis. The other was the forma• tion by the Charity Organization Society of London, a philanthropic body recently formed to make the distribution of charity more efficient and to prevent begging, of a special select committee on the training of the blind. This was made up of representatives from most of the major London societies interested in the welfare of the blind, and included such notables as the Duke of Westminster, Lord Shaftesbury, and Lord Lichfield.

The causes of these two events are perhaps more diverse than one might expect. Obviously the mere fact that the Education Act of 1870 made School Boards responsible for seeing that all children would receive an education was of tremendous importance. Nevertheless, two other

factors also played an important part. The first was the publication by

Colonel Mansfield Turner and William Harris of a Guide to Institutions and Charities of the Blind (1871). The second was the belief that

12

Britain was slipping behind the Continent in its care of the Blind.

The COS committee was responsible for making the first assessment of the extent of blindness in the United Kingdom. Some 30,000 people were thought to be blind, and of these only one-third were considered to 55

be capable of working.' In London alone some 2,890 people were found to be blind. Of these one in twelve was born blind; 493 were in Poor Law institutions; between eight and nine hundred were capable of work; and some 300 were children. When published the Committee's report, The Train• ing of the Blind, recommended that blind children should be educated from 13 age five and that more teachers be trained.

About the same time the COS created a special committee to inves• tigate the education and care of idiots, imbeciles, and harmless lunatics.

Like the Committee on the Training of the Blind it was busy and thorough and included a number of influential people amongst its membership such as Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Earl of Devon, Lord Lichfield, Sir J. P.

Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J. Kay-Shuttleworth, Lieutenant-General Cavenagh, and several prominent doctors. Before it reported in 1877, it had vis•

ited four institutions, held thirteen meetings, and heard evidence from the United States of America, the colonies, and several European coun•

tries. One of its main findings was that the harmless could be trained by proper methods and should, therefore, be placed in special institutions.

It was even the belief of the COS that the size of the total problem was

too big for private philanthropy, and that state support should be ob- 14

tained to aid local voluntary institutions. These and other recom• mendations were taken to the Local Government Board on 16 May 1877 by a

large deputation which included Lord Shaftesbury. The endeavour was particularly successful. A clause which drew the distinction between

harmless lunatics and others, and empowered local authorities to estab•

lish schools was inserted in the County Government Bill. Unfortunately, 56

the clause was later withdrawn with the Bill.1^

The spread of organizations specifically geared to provide meals for needy children was directly tied to the extent of medical knowledge concerning the relationship between diet and disease in the period before

1880. In the first instance new medical knowledge came from France. As early as 1848, the French Government had appointed a commission to en• quire into scrofula, rickets, impoverishment of the blood (angina coueneuse), and other diseases afflicting children. The conclusion reached by the Commission was that these diseases were caused by a lack of animal food in the diet, and that they might be checked if poor chil• dren were given a meal of fresh meat at least once a month. Though political events prevented any immediate response in metropolitan France,

Victor Hugo was able to initiate a programme on the island of Guernsey

in 1862. There he fed forty of the most necessitous children—twenty every two weeks—with fresh meat and a glass of wine. On 16 January

1864, Punch published an article about Hugo's scheme. It revealed not only that many sick children had been cured, but also that the physical constitution of nearly all the children had improved. Besides pointing out Victor Hugo's belief that it was the Christian duty of the rich to

look after the poor, Punch argued that it also made good economic sense

to provide needy children with good food:

The stronger the child is, the greater is the chance that he will grow up a strong man: and the stronger the man is the more work he can do, and the less chance will there be of his coming on the parish. So putting charity aside, it would be wise economy to give the chil• dren of the poor people now and then a meal of meat, and strengthen thus their sinews and constitutions.-^ 57

In addition, Punch suggested that while it might not be possible for people to follow Victor Hugo's example to the letter, it was entirely feasible for the richer members of the community to club together and hire a dining-hall. Within a month of the publication of this article the Destitute Children's Dinner Association had been formed.

Besides the obvious influence of Victor Hugo's scheme it seems likely that the formation of the Destitute Children's Dinner Association owed something to the work of Dr. Edward Smith. As early as 1862, he had been asked to report to the Privy Council on the nourishment of dis• tressed cotton operatives. His report related to the unemployed factory population of Ashton-Under-Lyne, Blackburn, Manchester, Preston, Stock• port, and Wigan, and was the first extensive attempt to relate good nutri• tion with the cost of food per head per week. It clearly outlined the

17 reasons for defective cookery, identified the lack of animal food in the diet, and suggested suitable diets. In addition, it stressed the importance of highly nitrogenized food for the young and pinpointed milk 18 as the most perfect food both in nutritional and cost terms. It seems indesputable that Dr. Smith's report, when published in 1863, must have brought the problem of child nutrition in depressed areas to the atten• tion of many important people of charitable minds in Government, the medical profession, and elsewhere.

In the period which followed the formation of the Destitute Chil• dren's Dinner Association many similar organizations were formed. While there may be some doubt regarding the influence of Dr. Smith's work on the formation of the first organization for feeding school children, 58 there is little doubt that his later work, by raising the health con• sciousness of people generally towards the need for good diets, helped the extension of charitable concerns for feeding needy children. In

1864 he both published Practical Dietary for Families, Schools and the 19

Labouring Classes, and carried out an examination of the diets of agri• cultural labourers, kid-glovers, needlewomen, silk weavers, shoemakers, stocking glove weavers, and throwsters. Published as the "Report to the

Privy Council on the Pood of the Poorer Labouring Classes in England," this examination represented the first attempt in any country to ascer- 20 tain the national dietary. Some two years later Dr. Smith conducted a special study of the dietaries of workhouse inmates. His report con• tained the following severe warning about the consequences of letting working-class children go underfed: It is a matter of both public policy and of local advantage, that children should be so fed that whilst they shall not acquire tastes which can not be satisfied in after life, they should grow up strong and healthy and be able to serve their employers and gain a living. If they should be of feeble health and imperfectly developed, they may procreate children of inferior health, and both they and theirs are likely to come to the workhouse to be maintained at the public expense. Moreover, so far as quality of mind (as indicated by intel• ligence and enterprise) is associated with defective bodily power (and this in the poor is far more general than has been recognized) they will also continue to occupy an inferior position even amongst their fellows, be inferior workmen and citizens; and be less influ• enced by the educational efforts which the state and private organi• zations are so widely making.2^

The influence of this report was not missed by the authorities. Dr.

Smith was asked to make further suggestions detailing how workhouse diets could be improved. These appeared in the 20th Annual Report of the Poor

Law Board and specifically emphasized the point that an abundant supply 59

of food was essential to the young's growth, health, and strength, and

22 laid down several principles for feeding children of different ages.

Between October 1869 and April 1870, several months before the

23 Education Act was passed, fifty-eight dining-rooms were opened in the 24 metropolitan area. M. E. Buckley, an early historian of the school meals' movement, has suggested that from the first, the motive, though

25

largely sentimental, was supported, by educational considerations.

This argument is substantiated by a report in the Times of 5 December

1867, concerning statements made by the fund raising committee.of the

Destitute Children's Dinner Association:

Their almost constant destitution of food is not only laying the foun• dation of permanent disease in their debilitated constitutions, but reduced them to so low a state that they have not vigour of body or energy of mind sufficient to derive any profit from the exertions of their teachers.2^

Nevertheless, the claim made by Dr. Smith in his book, Foods, published

in 1873, the year before his death, that the concentration of the public's

attention on foods and dietaries had been caused by a considerable in•

crease in commercial intercourse with distant countries, a marked improve• ment in the purchasing power of the masses, and a rapid increase in

27 wealth generally, cannot be taken lightly.

It is difficult to generalize about the effectiveness of these

early schemes for feeding hungry children. On the one hand, little is

known about how many children were being fed on a regular basis. On the other, there is insufficient data available to assess the quality of the

food prepared. In spite of these drawbacks some qualifications may be 60

made about specific schemes. Perhaps the most successful was one estab• lished at Rousdon in Devon. There, prior to 1876, children had to walk long distances to and from school on "wretched morsals" of food. However, in that year Sir Henry Peek provided one good meal every weekday at the cost of one penny per day. According to an inspector the results were very successful:

What strikes one at once on coming into the school is the healthy vigorous look of the children, and that their vigour is not merely bodily, but comes out in the course of examination. There is a marked contrast between their appearance and their work on the day of inspection, and those of the children in many of the neighbouring schools. The mid-day meal is good and without stint. It acts as an attraction, and induces regularity of attendance . . . Before the school was started the education of children in the neighbourhood was as low as any part of the district.28

However, it appears from other evidence that in most instances children

29 were provided with meals much less frequently and seldom at all during the summer months. In a. letter to the Times John Palmer, the secretary of the Clare Market Ragged Schools, reported that he knew of only one 30 case where dinner was provided as often as three times a week. Never• theless, it also appears from the records of the Destitute Children's 31 32 33 Dinner Association and the Ragged Schools Union that one good meal a week was not only sufficient to improve the physical condition of the children concerned, but also to allow better school work to be produced.

While the effectiveness of these schemes may be in some doubt their purpose was not. They did not set out, as the Charity Organization

Society made clear, to relieve indiscriminately the multitude of poor children to be found in the lowest parts of the metropolis. Instead, 61 the object was to encourage those who attended ragged and other schools to take full advantage of the moral and religious training that was made available. In fact, special care was taken to avoid any charge of pauper• izing the parents. It was for this reason that the Destitute Children's

Dinner Association and other feeding organizations required payment for the food provided. Normally the levy was a penny, a sum far short of the 34 actual cost. Nevertheless, even this small amount was beyond the means of many children.

In the period before 1880 policies governing the institutionali• zation of child health clearly followed the philosophy dictated by the

Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. Those who were considered to be physi• cally incapable were recognized by the State as requiring special ser• vices and in need of relief. Those who were able-bodied, even though they were only children, and it was no fault of theirs that they were hungry and undernourished, were left to the hands of charity. II

During the early 1880's a bitter controversy over "mental over• pressure" in schools developed. This had the effect of intertwining the philosophies and actions of all those interested in either the school hygiene movement, or hungry or defective children, and was responsible

for initiating the first medical inspections of elementary school chil• dren. For this reason it seems most appropriate to describe the efforts to improve the health and welfare of children during this period in terms of two specific categories: one concerning the actions to improve 62 the health and welfare of the school child, the other those attempting to improve the conditions of the child before he was old enough to go to school or while he was in the home.

In the 1860's the medical profession's interest in education had been limited to methods of containing the spread of infectious diseases in schools. In the following decade this interest was enlarged to in• clude the relationship between the physical condition of the school child and his ability. Though several important papers concerning this rela- 36 tionship were published in the leading medical journals by such people as Dr. Robert Farquharson and Dr. Francis Warner, there was no indication 37 that any vigorous controversy was imminent.

In April of 1880 an event occurred which changed all this. As with the case of the development of feeding organizations it was news from abroad which actually set things in motion. In this instance it was the decision of the London Times to reprint part of a paper entitled,

"Habitual Headache and Brain exhaustion," which had been read by a cer• tain Dr. Treichler to the Neurology and Psychiatry section of the German

Association of Natural Historians and Physicians in the previous year.

One may well ask why a paper read before a German society should have attracted so much attention in Britain when similar papers published at home by British doctors had not. The answer is fairly simple. In the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war things German tended to be much admired in Britain. This was particularly true of the Prussian school 38 system. In addition, it was in Germany that much of the valuable work in the field of child psychology was being carried out. Thus, when it 63 was said that German school children suffered from gross over-pressure, people in Britain listened attentively. The response to the Times' article was considerable. Letters by Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Dr.

Sophia Jex Blake, Dr. Robert Farquharson, and J. S. Laurie were published by the Times and raised all the important issues that were later to form the nub of the over-pressure controversy: How extensive was it? Could it be irradicated? Did it show a bias towards a particular sex or class? 39 How important was malnutrition as a contributory factor?

Between 1880 and 1884 several important events occurred within the medical profession which though not directly related to the problem of over-pressure, made the question of child health appear more important.

Among these were Dr. Priestly Smith's investigation of some 2,000 40

Birmingham school children and Training College students, and the pub• lication of the first British text-book on school hygiene by Dr. Clement 41

Dukes, the physician to Rugby School. Another landmark came in 1883 when the Anthropometric Committee of the British Association for the

Advancement of Science presented its final report. This clearly drew attention to the disparity between the physical dimensions of one class of British children and another: The most obvious facts which the figures disclose are the check which growth receives as we descend lower and lower in the social scale, and that a difference of five inches exists between the average sta• ture of the best and the worst nurtured classes of children of corres• ponding ages, and of 3h inches in adults.42

At the same time concern about mental over-pressure by elementary teachers and members of government departments increased. In 1882 A. J. 64

Mundella instigated a revision of the Education Code. When completed the

New Code stipulated that grants should be calculated on the basis of the number of passes obtained as a percentage of the number of children pre• sented for examination. This had the effect of reversing the attitude of elementary school teachers. Hitherto it had been in their interest to put up as many children as possible for examination. Now the opposite became true. As a result, the National Union of Elementary Teachers came out strongly against Mundella's New Code and over-pressure. A resolution passed by the executive under pressure from the rank and file stated:

The excessive requirements of the Code, some of the present conditions of examination, and the great irregularity of attendance at school, are causes which lead to great pressure upon the children in elemen• tary schools, and place especially heavy burdens upon the weak and dull children.43

In 1883 the question of over-pressure, or "over-education" as it was more often called at the time, became a matter of Parliamentary de• bate. On 16 July Lord Stanley of Alderley asked whether the Government intended to approve compulsory homework in elementary schools at a time when the press was alleging over-pressure and when returns were showing substantial increases of insanity, in view of the fact that two doctors, formerly attached to the West Riding Lunatic Asylum, had suggested that

44 educational strain was a cause of illness. It was this question which made the matter into a controversy of some import. The Government, and

Mundella especially, had invested much time and effort in the New Code and were not about to see what they believed to be a more efficient sys• tem of education made redundant by a conspiracy of lazy teachers and 65 greedy voluntary school managers. As a result, Mundella in replying to criticism in the Commons argued that malnutrition, not the Education Code, 45 was the cause of strain. In this position Mundella had the full sup• port of his department. According to Gillian Sutherland, Her Majesty's

Inspectors rebutted charges of over-pressure by defending the New Code and "payments by results" in their reports, at public meetings, and in letters to the Times. They persistently argued that malnutrition was a 46 far more serious cause of sickness and strain than over-pressure. It was for this reason that they gave ardent support to the Penny Dinner movement, and perhaps why Mundella came to sponsor a pamphlet on the sub- 47

ject. Likewise, Lyon Playfair, the Liberal health authority, also came to defend the Code by pointing out that child mortality had been falling since 1870 and that there was no evidence to show that deaths from brain 48 diseases were increasing. Samuel Smith went further. He suggested

that if Parliament went so far as to compel children to attend school they should provide them, if need be, with sufficient food to cope with the pressure. In addition, he argued that there should be medical inspec• tion of schools, and that grants should be based partly on the physical 49 health of the children concerned. In August the Lancet began a series of articles and stated quite categorically in support of Mundella: "the educational system is not overworking children but demonstrating that they are underfed.""'0

Neither these nor other defences were able to resist the attack on over-pressure and the Code either in or outside the Houses of Parlia• ment. In Parliament Stanley Leighton in the Commons, and Lord Stanley 66 in the Lords, maintained a fairly constant attack. Outside, Thomas

Heller, the Secretary of the NUET, took advantage of an opportunity to address a combined session of the Health and Education Sections of the 51 NAPSS at Huddersfield in October on the dangers of over-pressure. In February of the following year the former director of the West Riding 52

Lunatic Asylum, Dr. James Crichton-Browne, who was also the founder of

Brain and was now one of the Lord Chancellor's Visitors in Lunacy, wrote a strong letter to the Bradford Observer on the dangers of over-pressure from payments by results. This was sufficient to .force Mundella to re- 5 quest Dr. Crichton-Browne to visit some London schools and make a report. 54

The report represented a severe indictment of the educational system and re-echoed the warnings given by Charles Dickens in his novel, Dealings with the Firm of Dombey and Son: Wholesale, Retail and for Exportation in 55 56 1848. When the report was eventually published on 1 May 1884 it was accompanied by a memorandum written by a close adviser of Mundella, J. G.

Fitch. Whereas the work of. Dr. Crichton-Browne contained the latest in medical opinion, that of Her Majesty's Inspector was based only on cold hard fact. As a result, Fitch was able to discredit much of Dr. Crichton-

Browne1 s report on the basis that it failed to use a scientific method of analysis.

Thus, by 1884 the controversy over mental over-pressure had reached a stand-off. Because little in the way of new convincing evi• dence had been produced by either the medical or teaching professions since 1880, the case that mental over-pressure was severe enough to cause death remained unproven. However, because the issue of child health had 67

been brought so forcefully to the public's attention by the debate, the

Government and the inspectorate, in order to support the New Code, had been forced to concede that serious dangers to the health of children existed. While Fitch might attempt to rebutt Dr. Crichton-Browne's sug• gestion that free milk and meals as well as regular and detailed medical inspections should be given to elementary school children, with such words as:

... a school is established for the purpose of instruction and not for the purpose of dispensing new milk ... I trust that the states• men and the philanthropists who are now considering the difficult and anxious question will think twice before complicating the problem of national education by mixing it up with the administration of food and medicine to the children of the poor.^7

the consensus of informed opinion; was fast moving to the position that to. compel a hungry child to attend school was not only to place his health in severe jeopardy, and, consequently, that something urgent needed to be done about the case of necessitous children, but also to waste money need-

58 lessly on expensive education.

In fact, no sooner had the over-pressure debate died down than a new controversy over the merits of penny dinners began. On the one side were those like Mundella who believed that providing meals only for those who could afford to pay was not enough, as well as those who considered that free meals could be justified on the basis that parents made a finan• cial sacrifice in sending their children to school. On the other were those like the members of the COS who believed that the only means of avoiding pauperization of the parents Was by insisting oh a charge being levied. Despite these differences the debate was sufficient to cause a 68 considerable increase in the number of voluntary feeding organizations during the year 1884. On 13 December the School Board Chronicle could report Mundella as stating that since his mention of the Rousdon experi• ment in the House, school meals had been provided in rural districts at 59 an unprecedented rate. In London the Council for Promoting Self- supporting Penny Dinners had been established. In only a matter of some five months the number of penny-dinner centres jumped from two to 60 fifteen.

The provision of free school meals found early supporters both among private philanthropists who believed that suffering had to be relieved regardless of the moral consequences to the destitute, and among socialists and members of the labour movement. The Referee Fund which owed its beginnings to Mrs. Burgwin, the headteacher of the Orange Street

School, Southwark, and its development to Mr. G. R. Sims, the author of

How the Poor Live, and Arnold White, who made appeals through the columns of the Referee, had always given free meals to those in need. Likewise, the Board School Children's Free Dinner Fund which also began before the penny dinner movement, had adopted a policy of only feeding the children of those parents who were either ill, out of work, or otherwise unable 61 to provide the necessary penny or half-penny required elsewhere. Advo• cates of free school meals among socialists and members of the labour movement emerged only a little later. As early as January of 1882 socialists at a series of public discussions on "Practical Remedies for 62

Pressing Needs" suggested free feeding. However, it should be noted that in this and other instances socialists and members of the labour 69 movement always insisted on the feeding of all children who were forced to attend elementary schools. The feeding of school children developed as part of their overall platform of "free maintenance" of school chil• dren. The first political party to adopt free school meals as part of its official programme was the Social Democratic Federation under the leadership of H. M. Hyndman. It had canvassed right from its inception on the basis of "free compulsory education for all classes, together 6 3 with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school."

The growth of voluntary feeding organizations which developed as a result of all these pressures led to a serious overlapping of programmes and much wasting of effort in London. In 1887 Sir Henry Peek attempted to rectify this situation in London by doing for school feeding what the 64

COS had done for charity. Unfortunately, his attempt was not as suc• cessful. However, in 1888 two SDF candidates up for election to the

London School Board, Annie Bessant and Stewart Headlam, made school meals the main point of their election addresses. In the following year, partly as the result of Annie Bessant's exposure of the utter absurdity of trying to educate half-starved school children, the London School

Board set up a committee of enquiry.65 This established that food was being supplied very unsatisfactorily. Not only were some areas being over-supplied while others were left without any supplies at all, but in most districts most of the children could not be fed frequently enough and were not fed at all during the summer months. The Committee was able to obtain some indication of the size of the problem at hand. It was believed that approximately 12.8 per cent (43,888) of the children 70 attending schools runs by the Board were permanently in need of food, and that less than half of these (24,739) were actually being looked after. In addition, it found out that a penny was a prohibitive sum..for a considerable number of very poor children. As a result, the committee recommended that "cheap or free meals should be provided for poor chil• dren in the public elementary schools of London on such a scale that no 66 child really underfed should be without one meal a day." At a meeting held on 2 November 1889, at the London School Board Sir William Hart Dyke put forward the proposal, which was duly seconded by Mundella, to estab• lish a central organization for ensuring "a more economical and more efficient system of making provisions."67 This came into being as the non-party, London School Dinner Association. However, it should be pointed out that two of the more important voluntary societies providing meals declined to join the new Association. One was the Destitute Chil• dren's Dinner Association: The other was the Board School's Dinner Fund.

The first chose to remain outside the Association because one of its rules stipulated that a certain amount of animal food had to be included in the meals provided. The second refused to join because it did not 68 believe that payment should be required in all cases.

At the time of the formation of the London School Dinner Associ• ation self-supporting meals were the rule rather than the exception. By 6' oabouf thte 189meal5 sth eprovide conversd were waes actualltrue. yThe paind onlfoyr bapproximately London's yneed 10 y pechildrenr cent .

Several factors played a part in bringing'about this change. First, it seems highly likely that the number of children without the necessary 71

penny actually increased. Not only were there substantial increases in

London's population, but the 1880's represented a period of unusual dis-

70

tress for London's unskilled labour. It also appears that the fear of working-class violence, engendered in the middle class by London's

casually employed during the middle and late 1880's, had the effect of making the more well-to-do more willing to provide money for feeding

organizations. Meanwhile those in charge of feeding organizations were more prepared to turn a blind eye to the child who did not have his penny

or his half-penny, at a time when the influence of the moral code

implicit in the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was declining, and when

Charles Booth was proving that poverty had little to do with moral char•

acter and more to do with the amount of employment available in a dis•

trict and the size of the wage packets provided.

By 1895 another change in the pattern of school meal distribution was visible. As indicated earlier in this chapter the earliest feeding

organizations paid careful attention to the quality and quantity of the

meals provided. By 1895 the tendency to provide a good helping of meat with every meal had declined considerably. According to M. E. Buckley,

the chief reason for this was that the need to attract children now that

meals were free was no longer as great as when payment had been required.

In London another reason was that the National Food Supply Association,

the organization which did most of the catering, did much to promote

vegetarian interests in the form of vegetable soup. According to the

evidence given by C. H. Heller to the Special Committee on underfed

Children in 1895, the provision of this soup had undesirable effects. 72

"The soup . . . varies so little from day to day that it is natural for 72 the children to grow tired of it."

In 1898 the London School Board made a third attempt to deal with

the problem of feeding hungry children. The evidence given to the

General Purposes Committee clearly shows that as far as school feeding

in London went the same complaints about the lack of adequate and detailed plans were still warranted. Nevertheless, it is also quite clear from

the report that a profound shift in opinion had taken place among those who were responsible for the administration of school meals. This was

true even among those who were "keenly anxious to prevent the undermining 73

of prudence or self-help by. ill-advised or unregulated generosity."

Not only was it now freely admitted that the community's first duty was

towards the child and that the feeding of needy school children repre•

sented an essential service—people now even went so far as to recommend

that it should be extended to cover the summer months and should form

part of the overall work of the Centres for Physically and Mentally 74

Defective Children —but also that this service should be provided even

if it had a subversive effect on the moral character of the parent. In

any event, the committee now believed that they were on solid ground on

this point for they had found no evidence to show that feeding diminished

any sense of parental responsibility, and, consequently, believed that

parents who could feed their children, but failed to do so, should simply 75

be summoned for cruelty. More significantly, it was now also seen

that while underfeeding would cease with the general moral and material

improvement of the community, the prevention of underfeeding, with its 73 consequent problems of under-education and increasing malnutrition, could 7 6 provide a potent force in hastening the process of that improvement.

It has already been shown that such MP's as Samuel Smith of

Liverpool had advocated the medical inspection of schools as early as

July of 1884 and had suggested that grants should be tied to the physical condition of students. In August 1888 Dr. Francis Warner read a paper to the Psychology Section at the annual conference of the British Medical

Association under the title, "A Method of Examining Children in Schools as to Their Development and Brain Condition." Reaction to this paper was sufficient for the BMA to sponsor a committee to investigate the development and brain function of elementary school children. In 1889 a report covering fourteen schools and. some 5,444 children was published.

This was by far the smallest of three investigations. The results of the report were such as to cause the BMA to urge the Government to appoint a committee of enquiry. Though this effort proved to be unsuc• cessful, considerable public interest.in the medical inspection of school children was generated and a joint committee of the COS and the

BMA was established in 1890. This resulted in the investigation by Dr.

Warner of some 50,027 children in a further 106 schools. In 1892 a committee was appointed through the British Association for the Advance• ment of Science to undertake a similar investigation. As a result, Dr.

Warner, in conjunction with Dr. Shuttleworth and Dr. Fletcher Beach, examined a further 50,000 children during the years 1892 to 1896. To• gether the results of these investigations were published as the "Report on the Scientific Study of the Mental and Physical Conditions of Childhood, 74 with Particular Reference to those of Defective Constitution: also Con• taining Recommendations as to Education and Training." According to

Dr. A. H. Hogarth, the result of these investigations was to:

Arouse general interest in the whole subject of educational hygiene. The need for the scientific classification of school children accor• ding to their mental and physical capacities was evident and, as a result, mental deficiency was officially recognized in 1889, by the Royal Commission on the Blind, Dumb and Feeble-minded. Dr. Warner also drew public attention to the many conditions adversely affect• ing the health of the school child. In fact, he laid the foundation of the science of child study and stimulated the interest of medical men in the larger field of school hygiene.77

At this time there was no specific statutory provision for ap• pointing medical inspectors of schools at the local level. In fact, although there was considerable enthusiasm amongst individual researchers and doctors generally, there was very little in the way of official sup• port for medical inspection. However, some of the more progressive school boards examined the Elementary Education Act of 1870 and appointed special medical advisers as "necessary officers" under the general powers of section 35. In 1889 the London School Board had been first to break new ground with the decision to appoint a full-time medical officer and a junior clerk to do the clerical work. When, in the following year,

Dr. W. R. Smith was appointed at a salary of £400 per annum his duties were limited to reporting on candidates for permanent office, and to ad• vise on the light, sanitation, space, and ventilation of school buildings, and specifically did not include the medical inspection of school children.

The expansion of health services and medical staffs in London and elsewhere was directly related to the work of political factions, 75 investigatory committees and philanthropic organizations, as well as news from abroad and legislation itself. In 1883 a Royal Commission on the Blind and Deaf and Dumb had been set up. When its report was made available in 1889 it made mention of the fact that far too much of the education of blind children had been left to charity. Consequently, it included the recommendation that blind children between the ages of five and sixteen, and deaf children between the ages of seven and six• teen years of age, should be compulsorily educated. As well, it brought into focus the distinction between the feeble-minded child and the imbecile. Consequently, it recommended that mentally defective children should be separated from normal children and given special 78 education. In 1890 the London School Board received a copy of a re• port on the Elberfeld school system in Germany. This showed that special day school treatment could make effective wage-earners out of

87;per cent of the children admitted. As a result, the Board decided to 79 establish special day centres modelled on the German example. Here, as later in Bolton, Reading, Salford and other towns, socialists and other working-class groups were in the forefront of the movement seeking 80 special provisions for the physically and mentally handicapped. In

1893 the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf) Act was passed by Parlia• ment. This laid down two connected principles. On the one hand, author• ities were forced to provide educational establishments for blind and deaf children. On the other, parents became obliged to send blind or deaf children between the ages recommended by the Royal Commission to 81 such schools and to contribute towards such education. This Act not 76 only led to a definite extension of school board health services and the enlargements of medical staffs, both in London and elsewhere, but also to the recognition of the fact that the problem of mentally defective and epileptic children "was of considerably greater complexity than that of the blind and the deaf child, if not in the methods of instruction and the actual organization of schools, at least in the broader medical 82 and social issues involved."

In 1898 the London School Board had obtained the half-time ser• vices of two doctors. One of these was a woman who was given the job of examining female candidates for permanent employment. Over the next four years the medical department was reorganized to include four cleri• cal assistants and a new medical officer was appointed. Nevertheless, the main function of the medical staff still appears to have been the medical examination of prospective employees, the control of outbreaks of infectious diseases in schools, and the medical inspection of defec• tive children. By 1902 Bradford, Birmingham, Hull and London all had medical officers attached to their school boards; Leeds and Sheffield had provided public medical supervision for physically and mentally defective children, and an association of Medical Officers of Health 83 had been formed in London.

What went on in Bradford is worth relating in some detail be• cause it broke new ground. Bradford, it must be remembered, was not only the place of publication of Dr. Crichton-Browne1s letter but also the home of the Independent Labour Party. As a result, interest in medi• cal problems relating to education was high and socialist influence 77 strong. In 1892, some two years before an ILP candidate would be elected by the East Ward to the School Board, Dr. James Kerr was appointed as

Medical Officer. Dr. Kerr's position, unlike the one in London, included a special responsibility for the general health of school children. In

1894 Margaret McMillan, an intellectual and an ardent socialist was elected by a small majority to the School Board, one of the few posts open to women. From her first attendance she campaigned for cleaner children and the provision of school baths. Albert Mansbridge, her biographer, has claimed that the experience of seeing so many dirty chil• dren during her campaign for school baths led Miss McMillan directly to 84 the notion of medical inspection. When an opportunity arose for such examinations at the Usher Street School in 1899, she watched every minute of Dr. Kerr's examination of 285 girls, and gave advice on deaf- 85 ness, her own childhood affliction, where it was appropriate. In addition, Margaret McMillan was a great advocate of publicly supported school meals. In this she co-operated, in the early years, with Robert

Blatchford in the work of the Cinderella Club in Bradford and elsewhere in the North of'England. According to Brian Simon, Margaret McMillan's struggle for improvements in working-class child life took on an "epic quality and became the model of what an isolated socialist on a school 86 board could achieve." It has already been shown that the COS had a long interest both in physically, as well as, mentally defective children, and that the

Society had joined with the BMA to make medical examinations of children 87 in 1890. In the same year the Council of the COS appointed a special 78

committee to report on the public and charitable provision for feeble• minded, epileptic and deformed and crippled persons. In 1892, the same year that the first of the London School Board's special centres was opened, the COS sent a deputation to the Local Government Board. Though this deputation had little immediate effect, the COS's proposals led to the formation of the National Association for the Care of the Feeble• minded in 1895. It was through the pressure of this organization that the Government was forced to set up in 1896 a committee to inquire into the education of the feeble-minded. It was a result of the production of this committee's report in 1898 that the Elementary Education (Defec• tive and Epileptic Children) Act was passed in 1899. This was a permis• sive Act and merely allowed school boards to establish special schools for mentally and physically defective as well as epileptic children between the ages of seven and sixteen years of age. It did, however, allow all school boards to ascertain, through the services of a doctor, which children in the neighbourhood were unable to take advantage of the normal educational facilities.

Efforts to improve the lot of the child at home can be divided into two distinct groups, those covering children of any age and those which concerned only the child too young to go to school. The first may be said to have started in the early 1880's; the second began much later towards the end of the century.

In the early 1880's important steps were made towards the outlaw• ing of child abuse in the home. The first was the result of a visit to the United States of America by a certain Liverpool banker named Thomas 79

Agnew. Following a chance visit to the New York Society for the Preven• tion of Cruelty to Children in 1881 he made himself aware of the success• ful pioneer work against child cruelty carried out in several other

American cities. On his return to England a rather bizarre opportunity presented itself for him to further the cause of child rights. With the help of Samuel Smith, his local MP, he extended an appeal to provide 88 a Dog's Home to include a Home for Children. This led to the founding of the Liverpool Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in

1883. Before the end of the decade at least thirty-three other towns had formed similar societies, and many of these had joined forces with the London Society to establish the National Association for the Preven• tion of Cruelty to Children. Within only a few months of the founding of this Society in May of 1889 a Bill, often referred to as the

"Children's Charter," was enacted. The swift passage of this highly contentious Bill was due entirely to the careful preparatory work of the 89

Society. In its final.form the Act made it a misdemeanour to cause a child (a boy under fourteen or a girl under sixteen) to be: "ill- treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed in a manner likely to cause 90 such a child unnecessary suffering, or injury to its health." In this way A. J. Mundella, the Bill's sponsor, saw to it.that children were given the same protections as animals had been given under the Cruelty 91 to Animals Act and the Contagious Diseases Act for Domestic Animals. While the national conscience took some time to educate and the 92 words, "I dismiss the case, the woman did not know the law," were often repeated in the courts, the law was brought to bear. In the five year 80

93 period between the passing of the amendment to increase both the pen•

alties and the age limits, more.than 47,000 complaints were investigated by the NSPCC, some 5,702 persons were prosecuted, and about 94 per cent 94 of these were convicted. In addition, once the barrier of parental rights had been broken, other important pieces of legislation could be passed. The first of these was the Poor Law Adoption Act of 1889. This removed the rights of parents proven to be irresponsible, and allowed the courts to appoint overseers to ensure the welfare of the children of such parents. The second important piece of legislation was the Custody of Children Act of 1891, often called the "Barnardo Act." This prevented parents who had earlier abandoned or neglected their children from re• claiming them once they had reached working age.

During the early years of the NSPCC some quarters.-of the popula• tion believed that it was only working-class parents who were cruel to their children. Indeed letters to the Times went so far as to suggest 95 that the NSPCC was becoming a terror to the poor. Neither of these propositions can be supported by the facts. As the first Honorary Secre• tary of the Society, the Reverend Benjamin Waugh, was to remark, the NSPCC had "a single eye to putting down the cruel treatment of children, which (can) be turned aside by neither the poverty nor the wealth of their 96 wrong-doers." The biographers of the NSPCC, Anne Allen and Arther

Morton, have shown that the case-work of the Society clearly substan• tiated the Secretary's claim. In fact, they state categorically: "This is utterly untrue; the cases are very uniformly distributed amongst the 97 population." 81

Interest in infant welfare, and, consequently, in infant mortal• ity, also developed with the decline in the birth-rate. By the 1880's several demographic trends had become clearly discernible. First, the birth-rate in England and Wales had begun a definite decline. This was specifically true for communities living in major urban centres. Second, death-rates from the most deadly infectious diseases had fallen dramati• cally. This was particularly true for the younger age-groups. Third, there was no sign anywhere that the benefits of the victories over sick• ness and disease were being passed on to infants. This fact, in conjunc• tion with the fall in the birth-rate, was sufficient to alarm many doctors. However, when it was also noted that the birth-rate in the colonies had fallen even more rapidly than in Great Britain, and when the growths in population of Britain's major industrial rivals were taken into consideration, the problem of infant mortality took on a greater political significance.

It was well-known that a major cause of infant mortality was epidemic diarrhoea. Between 1880 and 1890 no less than three important papers were presented on the subject. In 1880, Dr. Longstaff spoke to the Society of Medical Officers of Health. In 1887, Dr. Ballard pro• vided a special supplement to the Medical Officer's Report to the Local

Government Board, and, in November of 1889, Dr. Newsholme discussed the subject in his Presidential Address to the Society of Medical Officers of Health. According to Dr. G. F. McCleary, one of the infant welfare movement's pioneers, "Dr. Newsholme's address attracted attention and did much to stimulate preventative action. It was one of the influences 82

9 that contributed effectively to the rise of the infant welfare movement."

Indeed, Dr. Newsholme's address made a number of important recommenda• tions and observations. He thought that the cause of epidemic diarrhoea was to be found in unclean soil and that it infected the air and was readily digested with food, especially milk. In order to eliminate the disease he suggested: methods of improved scavaging; better paved alleys and yards; the:replacement of all privies with water carriage systems, 99 and, very significantly, the municipal supply of sterilized milk. As a result of these three investigations the problem of infant mortality was seen.as one which primarily concerned hand-fed babies, and, more importantly, one of teaching mothers how to rear their children.

As with other aspects of the movement to improve child health, it was the example of how things were done abroad that was the cause of progress towards a solution in Britain. According to Dr. Drew Harris, it was an article published in the Journal of State Medicine in December of 1898, describing Dr. Dufour's Goutte de Lait at Fecamp in France which led him to establish Britain's first milk depot at St. Helens,

Lancashire."''00 In 1900, one year after.the founding, Dr. Harris described the effect the depdt had had to the annual conference of the BMA. Within only a few years Liverpool, Ashton-under-Lyne, Dukinfield, Battersea,

Leith, Bradford, Burnley, Glasgow, Dundee, Leicester, Lambeth, and

Woolwich had followed St. Helens' example. Ill

These were the methods adopted to improve the health and welfare 83 of British children during the second half of the nineteenth century. By

1900 Parliament had intervened only to secure the health and welfare of defective children and to protect children against cruelty, neglect and sexual abuse. Neither the legislation outlawing cruelty nor that providing services for defective children contravened the moral philosophy of the

1834 Poor Law. Though it was becoming more and more obvious that volun• tary programmes were quite incapable of coping with the problem of wide• spread malnutrition among working-class children, the provision of meals remained within the domain of private charity. Likewise, while extensive medical examinations of children had revealed the high proportion of working-class children who were in need of medical attention, the medical inspection of school children continued to be carried out only at private schools and at a few state-funded elementary schools run by progressive local authorities. Any treatment given to working-class children was restricted to minor ailments which could be dealt with by a nurse, and was severely limited by the fact that only a few school boards had employed a school nurse by 1900.

Such an understanding of events suggests that the following ques• tions need answering: (i) does the failure of the British Government to become involved in the provision of meals when it was known that volun• tary organizations could not cope with the problem of working-class mal• nutrition deny the possibility of the moral code implicit in the 1834

Poor Law Amendment Act being broken before 1900? (ii) If it does not, how can the delay of nearly twenty years between the time when working- class child health standards were found to be intolerable and the time 84

when government intervened to do something about the problem be ex• plained? (iii) What justification is there for seeing the Acts which set out to secure the health, welfare and education of defective children, or the Act which attempted to prevent cruelty to children, as being the starting point of the child health service? and (iv) Does the fact that there were no Acts which specifically set out to improve the health and welfare of working-class children before 1900 deny the possibility of there having been a significant change in the status of working-class children before that time?

Such questions cannot be answered realistically without examin• ing them within the context of the changing social circumstances of the

1880's and 1890's. It is important to remember that working-class children were not at any time during the last twenty years of the nine• teenth century the major social concern of the British middle class.

The group which most worried and frightened the more well-to-do was

London's 'residuum'--the casual poor."'"0''" Consequently, increases in the number of feeding organizations and in the amounts of money spent on feeding needy children more closely represent an attempt to appease the casual poor than symbolize a rise in status of working-class children.

Likewise, the increasing practice of providing meals free of charge in• stead of requiring recipients to cover part of the cost should not be seen in itself as proof of a breakdown in Poor Law philosophy. Rather the change in practice should be recognized as reflecting the middle class's broader realization that chronic poverty, not pauperism, was the major social problem facing the age, and that private subscription and 85 compulsory payment were incompatible with its solution.

Chinks in Poor Law philosophy began to appear in the 1880's. In

1885 the Medical Relief (Disqualification Removal) Act was passed. This made it no longer necessary for a person obtaining medical treatment 102 through Poor Law authorities to be disenfranchised. In the following year Joseph Chamberlain issued a Local Government Board Circular which permitted authorities to establish local works programmes that would 103 relieve unemployment. With the exception of the renewal of this

Circular in 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1895 there was no further specific government action to relieve the casual poor until the Conservative 104

Government passed the Unemployed Workman Act in 1905. This delay re• flected a general lull in the public's concern for the very poor. Gareth

Stedman Jones in his very perceptive study of the period, Outcast London:

A Study of the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society, has suggested that at least five factors were responsible for defusing the 105 social crisis which the Trafalgar Square riot of 1886 epitomized. The most immediately effective was the London dock strike of 1889. The sight of an orderly procession of dockers marching through the City of

London produced a deep sigh of relief. Instead of being a threat to social peace, the unionization of the unskilled became a symbol of self- help and moral improvement.106 Though the findings of Booth's pilot surveys were not initially well received, their publication in book form shortly after the dock strike married nicely with the change in middle- class attitudes. Together with the visible proof that the unskilled now meant no harm to person or property, Booth's analysis turned the casual 86

107 poor from a political threat into a social problem.

From the late 1880's there was a general improvement in the con• ditions of trade. Declines in traditional industries began to be offset 108 by the expansion of newer ones. The very high rate of unemployment which had been reached and maintained during the mid-1880's began to 109 fall. With the exception of the years 1890, 1891, 1896, and 1897 the steady advance in real wages which began again in the mid-1880's, con• tinued.1"'"^ All these factors, by reducing the amount of distress naturally, tended to offset the need for government intervention.

Two other factors helped defuse the social crisis. As certain industries declined within the central cores of cities newer ones sprang up or were relocated in the suburbs. This, coupled with the development of cheap train transportation, reduced the pressure on housing in the cities and made it possible for many members of the working class to live outside the central cores. Together these developments reduced the fear widely held by the middle class that the respectable working class would be infected by the degenerate elements in society.11"''

In a number of ways the Education Acts which provided the legal basis for establishing special services for defective children repre• sented the starting point of the State's involvement in child health.

Not only were these Acts partly responsible for the growth of medical appointments to school boards, but the continuous contact of doctors with school boards, required by the need to classify the extent of phy• sical defects and to draw the line between the imbecile and the feeble• minded child, must have alerted school board members to a whole range of 87 child health problems to which they would otherwise have remained unaware, and must have developed an expertise among the lay administrators. Per• haps more important, the medical examinations of large numbers of chil• dren that preceded the Acts, and which were carried out partly to demonstrate the need.for such measures, played an important role in rais• ing the consciousness of the British middle class to the problem of child health. However, the fact that articles written by such eminent

British physicians as. Francis Warner did not attract much attention out• side a small group within the medical profession before the 1880's illustrates that the reason the "mental over-pressure in schools" contro• versy did not reach its peak until 1884 had more to do with a greater awareness of social conditions and a broader understanding of the causes of poverty in the 1880's, than to a lack of knowledge of child psychology in the 1870's. Likewise., the fact that the "mental over-pressure" con• troversy was able to induce such busy compaigners of improved housing, stronger imperial policies, and state-aided immigration, as G. R. Sims,

Arnold White, and Lord Brabazon, to become active supporters of school meals, suggests that the wish to avoid "over-pressure" stemmed more from a desire to ameliorate the casual poor and to defuse the social crisis of the 1880's than from greater medical knowledge of, for example, the effects of malnutrition on growth and development.

By comparison, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act cannot be considered as a starting point of a state-run child health service.

No governmental bureaucracy was formed to prevent the health of children being impaired by cruelty, neglect or sexual abuse; nor was any expertise 88 developed to help create a medical service for children. Nevertheless, the Prevention of Cruelty, to Children Act was important in the develop• ment of programmes to improve the health of children. Not only did it concentrate attention on the plight of children, but it established an important legal precedent. Following its passage children were con• sidered to have definite rights. Under certain circumstances these rights could pre-empt those of parents. However, the ease with which the Bill was. passed through Parliament in 1889, and the consequent acqui• sition of rights by children, are.not indicative of children having obtained a new or special status in the community.. Rather they more closely reflected the rising concern over Britain's future place in the world and a change in priorities—namely that the degeneration of the race and national efficiency were more important questions than the demoralization of the present adult population. The Boer war was to be responsible for making the change in priorities among the middle class more explicit, and for raising the level of concern over Britain's place in the world to such an extent that the demand for efficiency became a matter of the utmost national urgency. It was as a result of this new sense of urgency that the quest for national efficiency was seen to imply both the need for a ready supply of physically fit men to protect the

Empire against attack.and a continuous stream of physically efficient men to keep the wheels of industry turning. To ensure such a supply, it became obvious that some great long-term plan of social action was neces• sary. This would not only have to prevent any degeneration of the British race, but would have to ensure that the constitutions of those at the 89

bottom of the social pyramid were improved. To bring this about it was only logical that the health and physical development of working-class children would be called upon to play a major part in the new blue• print. 90

FOOTNOTES

See, for example, J. B. Curgenven, "On the Laws of Belgium Rela• tive to Illegitimate Children and Foundlings," Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1867), pp. 531-39. 2 According to Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children m

English Societyr 2 (London, 1973), p. 622, this remark was made in a letter by Lord Shaftesbury. 3 See Anne Allen and Arthur Morton, This is Your Child: The Story of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (London, 1961), p. 22. 4 See ibid. 5 According to A. F. Young and E. T. Ashton, British Social Work in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1956), p. 186, this Act was seldom used but its passing does show an increasing public concern for the wel• fare of defective children. 6 Ibid., p. 189. 7 See School Inspectors' Report, Education of the Blind, Parlia• mentary . Papers, C 4747 (1886). The Manchester inspector's report shows that this practice was continued in some areas until as late as 1886. Q The starting point of interest in crippled children was Mrs. Humphrey Ward's campaign for special schools in 1898. 9 At least this is the opinion of Young and Ashton, p. 200. 10 See ibid., p. 198.

As late as 1881 the Return on Idiots (i.e., mental defectives of any grade) in public institutions numbered 29,452. Only some 3 per cent of these were receiving any care and treatment in institutions spe• cifically designed for them. The remainder were left to rot in lunatic asylums, prisons, and workhouses. See K. Jones, A History of Mental Health Services (London, 1972), p. 183. 12 See Helen Bosanquet, Social Work in London: 1869 to 1912, A History of the COS (London, 1914), p. 191. 13 Ibid., pp. 191-92. 14 Sir Charles Trevelyan was perhaps the first to voice the 91 opinion that private charity was incapable of looking after idiots and imbeciles, and also to coin the phrase—feeble-minded. See ibid., p. 196. According to Jones, Trevelyan backed up his argument for state aid to help "improvable idiots" with a pamphlet and a letter to the Lunacy Com• mission.

15 See Bosanquet, p. 197.

16 Punch, 16 January 1864. Punch got its information from the Guernsey Star. 17 See previous chapter for a discussion of the reasons for defec• tive cookery. 18 Dr. Edward Smith, "Report on the Nourishment of Distressed Operatives," Fifth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 1863, Parliamentary Papers (1863), XXV, 320ff. 19 Dr. Edward Smith, Practical Dietary for Families, Schools, and the Labouring Classes (London, 1864). 20 Dr. Edward Smith, "Report to the Privy Council on the Food of the Poorer Labouring Classes in England," Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, Parliamentary Papers (1864), XXVIII, 223ff. In the same year two other enquiries were made which focussed on the diets of specific groups. They were: "Report of the Committee Appointed by the Home Office to Inquire into the Dietaries of County and Borough Gaols," Parliamentary Papers (1864), XLIX, 543ff., and the "Report of the Committee Appointed by the HOme Office to Inquire into the Dietaries of Convict Prisons," Parliamentary Papers (1864), XLIX, 9ff. It is likely that these two reports had some impact. 21 Dr. Edward Smith, "Report to the Poor Law Board on Dietaries for Inmates of Workhouses," Parliamentary Papers (1866), XXXV, 321ff. 22 Dr. Edward Smith, "Report on the Uniformity of Workhouse Die• taries," 20th Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, Parliamentary Papers (1867-68), XXXIII, Iff. 23 This expansion of dining-halls illustrates that there was much interest in school feeding before the Education Act of 1870 was intro• duced by W. E. Forster (Liberal MP for Bradford) in February of 1870. It did not become law until 8 August 1870. 24 See "Report on Metropolitan Soup Kitchens and Dining Tables," by the Society for Organizing Charitable Relief (1871), p. 57: cited by M. E. Buckley, The Feeding of School Children (London, 1914), p. 4. 25 See Buckley, p. 4. 92

2 6 The Times, 5 December 1867. 27 Dr. Edward Smith, Foods (London, 1873), Preface. 28 See A. J. Mundella's speech to the House of Commons, Parlia• mentary Debates , 3rd ser. (16 July 1883). 29 Buckley, p. 5, has suggested that as a rule children received a meal once a week and sometimes twice. 30 The Times, 16 October 1871. 31 See The Times, 5 December 1867 and 26 March 1869. 32 See their report of 1870 (quoted in the Report on Metropolitan Soup Kitchens and Dinner Tables [1871], p. 588). 33 According to Buckley, p. 5, the meals given at this time were normally substantial and Included hot meat. The Times of 27 November 1869, reported a dinner given by the Refuge for Homeless and Destitute Children to the pupils of St. Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury, as con• sisting of boiled and roast beef, plenty of potatoes and a thick slice of bread. Such meals, according to Buckley were in constant contrast to those given out at the end of the century. The latter being mainly soup. 34 According to Buckley the cost of meals was between 4d and 6d. 35 See The Times, 15 April 1868. 36 For example, Dr.. Robert Farquharson, "Overwork," The Lancet (1976), 1:9; Dr. Francis Warner, "Recurrent Headache in Children and Associated Pathological Conditions," British Medical Journal (1879). 37 See A. B. Robertson, "Children, Teachers and Society: The Over-pressure Controversy, 1880-1886," The British Journal of Educational Studies, 20 (October 1972), 317. 38 W. H. G. Armytage has assessed the influence of Germany in his book, The German Influence on English Education (London, 1969). Dr. Treichler's article was published in the Times on 8 April 1880. 39 See the Times, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 19 April (1880). A leading article appeared on 8 April and an assessment on 23 April 1880. 40 Dr. Priestly Smith, "Short Sight in Relation to Education" (November 1880). 41 Dr. Clement Dukes, Health at School Considered in its Mental, Moral and Physical Aspects (London, 1882); this book went through four 93 editions by 1905. It clearly indicates that British doctors were conver• sant with continental developments in this field. 42 "Final Report of the Anthropometric Committee," Report of the Fifty-third Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Stockport, September 1883), p. 281. 43 Cited in Gillian Sutherland, Policy-making in Elementary Edu• cation, 1870-1895 (London, 1973), p. 247. Sutherland suggests that the over-pressure controversy "brought the first full-scale attack on payment by results as a system of education" (p. 245). Prior to Mundella's New Code grants were calculated.according to the number of children put up for examination. The New Code:calculated the' grant on the number of passes as a percentage of the number of children put up for examination. 44 Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser.,(16 July 1883), col. 1465. 45 Ibid. (26 July 1883), cols. 576-85. 46 See Sutherland, pp. 253-54. 47 The pamphlet was entitled, "Can a Sufficient Mid-day Meal be Given to Poor Children at a Cost for Materials of Less Than a Penny?" (1883). 48 Parliamentary. Debates, 3rd ser. (26 July 1883), cols. 600-605. 49 Ibid., cols. 597-98. 50 The Lancet (4 August 1883). 51 See "Discussion of Educational Over-pressure," Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (Hudders- field, 1883), pp. 388-92. 52 For a discussion of the role of Dr. Crichton-Browne at the West Riding Lunatic Asylum and of the institution's contribution to neuro• physiology, see H. R. Viets, "West Riding 1871-1876," Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine, 6 (1938), 477-87. 53 H. C. Raikes, the Tory MP for Cambridge, brought the newspaper article to the attention of the Vice-President in the House on 19 Feb• ruary 1884. Mundella, however, had jumped the gun and had already met with Dr.- Crichton-Browne and.had arranged for him to visit some London schools and make a report. 54 See "Report of Dr. Crichton-Browne upon Alleged Over-pressure," Parliamentary Papers (1884), LXI:259-311. 55 See Charles Dickens, Dealings with the Firm of Dombey and Son: 94

Wholesale, Retail and for Exportation (London, 1970), p. 206: "In fact, Doctor Blimber's Establishment was a great hot-house, in which there was a forcing apparatus incessantly at work. All the boys blew before their time. Mental green-peas were produced at Christmas, and intellectual asparagus all the year round. Mathematical gooseberries (very sour ones too) were common at untimely seasons, and from mere sprouts of bushes, under Dr. Blimber's cultivation. Every description of Greek and Latin vegetable was got off the driest twigs of boys, under the frostiest cir• cumstances. Nature was of no.consequence at all. No matter what a young gentleman was intended to bear, Doctor Blimber made him bear to Pattern, somehow or other. This was all very pleasant and ingenious, but the system of for• cing was attended with its usual disadvantages. There was not the right tests about the premature productions, and they didn't keep well. More• over, one young gentleman, with a swollen nose and an excessively large head (the oldest of ten who had 'gone through' everything), suddenly left off blowing one day, and remained in the establishment a mere stalk. And People did say that the Doctor had rather overdone it with young Toots, and- that when he began to have whiskers he left off having brains."

^6 Mundella appears to have wished to avoid the publication of this report. For a discussion of this point see Sutherland, pp. 254-56. 57 See "Memorandum by the Education Department on Dr. Crichton- Brown's Report," Parliamentary Papers (1884), cited by Robertson, p. 323. 58 See the Times' leading article of 13 December 1884. "It is now admitted that children cannot be expected to learn.their lessons un• less they are properly fed." The opinions of Dr. Arthur Newsholme, Fifty Years in Public Health: A Personal Narrative with Comments (London, 1935), pp. 401-2, are informative. Not only did people, and especially doctors, come to the position that to educate a hungry child was to over- press him, but they also came to the conclusion that to prevent a child from going to school might make him worse off. Newsholme himself wrote, "A Child, though half-starved, is better off from a sanitary standpoint, in a well-warmed, and well ventilated school room, than wandering in the streets. The brain-work involved in school life will burn up less of his scanty food than would be required to keep up his temperature in re• turning the external cold." See also Bosanquet, p. 243. 59 This statement was made at a conference of Board School Man• agers and Teachers. See Buckley, p. 12. See ibid.

61 See The Times, 16 December 1885. 62 See H. M. Hyndman, Record of an Adventurous Life (London, 1911), p. 296. 95

6 3 See Justice, 9 August 1884: cited in Brian Simon, Education and the Labour Movement, 1870-1920 (London, 1965), p. 133. 64 According to The Times, 16 November 1887, Sir Henry Peek helped set up a committee comprised of representatives from the Self- supporting Penny Dinner Council, the Board School Children's Dinner Fund, the South London Schools Dinner Fund, Free Breakfasts and Dinners for the Poor Board School and Other Children of Southwark, and the Poor Children's Aid Association to consider the ways in which co-operation was feasible. The Committee recommended: (i) self-supporting dinner centres should be opened in as many districts as possible in London; (ii) the various societies providing dinners.should be invited to use them; (iii) free dinners should only be given on receipt of a recommendation from the head teacher; and (iv) a register should be kept of all free dinners given out, and a note made of the family circumstances of children who received them. 65 See Simon, p. 156. 66 See "Report of Special Committee of Meals for School Children," in Minutes of the London School Board, 25 July 1889, p. 373, which is sited by Buckley, p. 16, and in Bosanquet, pp. 250-51. 67 See "Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and the Feeding of School Children Attending Public Elementary Schools," Parliamentary Papers (1905), Cd. 2779, sec. 2023.

5^ See the evidence of Joseph R. Diggle, past chairman of the London School Board and chairman of the London School Dinner Association in ibid., sec. 2018ff. 69 See London School. Board, Report of Special Committee on Under• fed Children (1895), p. iii, cited by Buckley, p. 19. 70 Four factors made the distress amongst London' unskilled labour unusual: (i) severe winters: there were particularly harsh winters in 1879, 1880, 1881, 1886, 1887, 1891, and 1895; (ii) the cyclical depres• sion of .1884-87: this was more prolonged and hit a broader spectrum of occupations than the slumps of 1866 and 1879; (iii) the housing crisis; and (iv) the migration of unskilled labour into the big cities at a time when certain of the older industries were in decline. For a discus• sion of all these points see Gareth Stedman Jones' important book, Out• cast London: A Study in the Relationships Between Classes in Victorian Society (London, 1971). 71 See Buckley, p. 19. 72 Cited in ibid., p. 20. 73 See London School Board, Report of General Purposes Committee on Underfed Children (1889), p. iii: cited by Buckley, p. 22. 96

74 See ibid., pp. iv-v, paras. 19 and 21 which are cited by Buckley, p. 23. 75 See ibid., cited by Buckley, p. 24. 7 6 See ibid., p. iv, paras. 17 and 20 which are cited by Buckley, p. 23. 77 See A. H. Hogarth, Medical Inspections of Schools (London, 1909), p. 19. 78 See "Annual Report for 1908 of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education," Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 4986 (1910), p. 114. 79 Ibid. 80 See Simon, pp. 156-57. In February of 1893 at a joint meet• ing of the Fabian Society and other socialist groups a joint manifesto was produced (published 1 May 1893). This included the free maintenance of all necessitous children. It also included the prohibition of all child labour for wages. See E. R. Pease, The History of the Fabian Society (New York, 1926), pp. 202-3. 81 • See "Annual Report for 1908 of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education," p. 5. 82 Ibid. 83 See Jeanne Brand, Doctors and the State: The British Medical Profession and Government Action in Public Health, 1870-1912 (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 183-84. 84 See Albert Mansbridge, Margaret. McMillan: Prophet and Pioneer, Her Life and Work (London, 1932), p. 38. Dr. Kerr claimed in a memor• andum to the Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feed• ing of School Children Attending- Public Elementary Schools that this was "the first attempt in this country to assess the average condition of school children." 85

See ibid., p. 39.

Simon, p. 157. 87 The COS played a considerable part in raising the funds for the first of the two extensive surveys. Some £211 was actually provided by its Council. 88 89 See T. F. Agnew's recollections in Allen and Morton, p. 17. See ibid., p. 30. They report that 10,000 copies of a 97 pamphlet entitled, "Imperial legislation and Street Children" (every corporation received one). Besides receiving a copy of the pamphlet each MP received a letter, twelve foolscap pages in length, which explained the need for the Bill and justified each clause. 90 See Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 57 & 58 Victoria, 13 July 1889. 91 See Parliamentary Debates (1889), 337, col. 229. 92 See "The Power for the Children," Report of the NSPCC for the Year 1895-96, p. 39-40: cited by Pinchbeck and Hewitt, p. 627. 93 The amendment extended the field in which children might give evidence without taking the oath and included injury to mental health and failure to call a doctor in the list of offences. 94 See Pinchbeck and Hewitt, p. 628. 95 See Allen and Morton, p. 27. See ibid. 97 . . See ibid. 98 G. F. McCleary, The Early History of. the Infant Welfare Move• ment (London, 1933), p. 27. 99 See G. F. McCleary, The Maternity and Child Welfare Movement (London, 1935), p. 6. 100 See G. F. McCleary, The Early History of the Infant Welfare Movement, p. 69.

According to Gareth Stedman Jones, pp. 11-13, after 1850 "fears about the consequences of urban existence and industrial society centred increasingly on London. For London, more than any other city, came to symbolize the problem of the 'residuum' . . . London was regarded as the Mecca of the dissolute, the lazy, the mendicant, 'the rough' and the spendthrift . . . ." 102 For a discussion of this Act see, for example, Brian Rodgers, "The Medical Relief (Disqualification Removal) Act 1885," Parliamentary Affairs, 9 (1955-56), 188-94. 103 W. A. Bailward believed the circular to be the "first breach in the unity of the Poor Law," "Some Recent Developments of Poor Relief," Economic Journal, 22 (December 1912), 544. 104 See B. B. Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in 98

Great Britain: The Origins of the Welfare State (London, 1966), pp. 38-39.

For the details and significance of this riot see ibid., pp. 32-38, and Stedman Jones, pp. 291-94.

^<">6 See Stedman Jones, pp. 315-21.

7 Ibid. , p. 321.

108 See ibid., p. 324. Silk weaving and ship building had vir• tually disappeared in London by 1900. The clothing, footwear and fur• niture trades, the leather-processing industry, jewellery and watch• making and casual employment in the docks and markets remained but were not expanding. Part of the building trade, engineering, factories, laundries, offensive trades, printing, railway depots and warehouses had all moved to the outskirts. Motor works, paper mills and power stations were established outside the County of London. 109 It stood at 7.5 per cent between 1884 and 1887. See S. B. Saul, The Myth of the Great Depression 1873-1896 (London, 1969), p. 31.

See ibid.

See Stedman Jones, pp. 322-24. 99

CHAPTER III

THE NATIONAL EFFICIENCY MOVEMENT AND THE QUESTION OF PHYSICAL

DETERIORATION: BASIC INGREDIENTS IN THE FORMATION

OF A NATIONAL BLUE-PRINT FOR SOCIAL ACTION

In the period between the end of the Crimean war and the close of the nineteenth century, Britain's military underwent no serious test.

Despite the fact that British military strategists had not failed to notice that the Franco-Prussian war had given a new significance to standing armies, those charged with the responsibility of maintaining the British armed forces continued to think more in terms of how the

Royal Navy would guard the sea lanes to the Empire than about the phys• ical and mental capabilities of the average British private soldier. A small guerilla war, waged several thousand miles away in Southern Africa by a relatively small number of Boer settlers was responsible for drama• tically changing the perspective of the Whitehall planners, and for con• centrating the attention of the British upper classes on the social con• ditions endured by their less privileged countrymen.

This change did not come about with the outbreak of hostilities with the Boers in October of 1899. Rather the early months of the war saw the British consumed by a jingoistic fervour and indignant at the effrontery of an enemy who chose to fight in his ordinary working clothes.

Public opinion during this period was ill-informed, superficial in its judgement, hasty in the celebration of victories, and easily overcome by defeats: support for the war depended more on self-righteousness and 100 pride than on issues and principles.1 There was the odd warning by 2 alarmists like Arnold White about the terrible physical standards of those members of the working class who volunteered for the army, but these were largely ignored. Few bothered to concern themselves about

British military capabilities, or worried themselves about the British political system's ability to generate strong leadership and maintain

Britain's economic strength and imperial dominance.

Britain's day of reckoning came during the early days of December,

1899. In one week—called colloquially "Black Week"—the British troops in Southern Africa suffered three serious reverses. The first occurred at Stormberg, northern Cape Colony on 10 December. There a brigade of

British troops under the leadership of General Gatacre lost 719 men and two guns. On the following day Lord Methuen with a large division was soundly beaten and lost 950 men at Magersfontein on route to relieve

Kimberley. Four days later the commanding general of the British army,

General Sir Redvers Buller, was completely outclassed by the skill of

Louis Botha at Colenso, Natal, and lost some 1,100 men and ten guns out of six artillery batteries, four infantry brigades and one mounted 3 brigade. These defeats were considered of sufficient importance for the Government in Westminster to replace Buller with Lord Roberts, and to send out heavy reinforcements.

The reaction of an incredulous public to these reverses was immediate, dramatic, and at times almost hysterical. Karl Pearson be• lieved that they depressed the nation's spirits to the lowest level in

4 living memory. L. S. Amery considered that the reverses were responsible 101 both for changing "the complacent arrogance and contempt for other nations" held by many in Britain as the result of long years of peace and prosperity to a truer consciousness of Britain's strengths and de- 5 fects. One of the first to express this new consciousness publicly was

John Knowles, the editor of Nineteenth Century. Starting with the July issue of 1900 he used the pages of his influential periodical under the emphatic headline, "The Lessons of the War," to urge the formation of a vigilence committee.6 This committee was given the title of the Admin- 7 xstrative Reform Association, and was charged with the responsibility for seeing that the country was governed according to "ordinary business 8 principles and methods."

Though there was, therefore, some substance to the claim made by

G. B. Shaw in an election manifesto that the war had.been responsible for turning "fierce searchlights on official, administrative and military 9 perfunctoriness," the general election, when it came in October of 1900, was resolved entirely over the issue of the war and whether or not it 10 should be continued.

In many ways the "Khaki Election," as the general election of early October 1900 has become known, obscured the popular will. Follow• ing the relief of Mafeking on 17 May 1900 the British army won a series of victories which culminated in the capture of Johannesburg and the

Transvaal capital, Pretoria. By October Lord Roberts had proclaimed the annexation of the Boer republics, and, despite the change to guerilla tactics, had claimed that the war was won.''""'" It should be remembered that in the period between the last election and October 1900 the 102

Conservative and Unionist majority in the House of Commons had been cut from 152 to 128 seats. It was precisely with this in mind that the 12

Government, and particularly Joseph Chamberlain, decided to dissolve

Parliament and to capitalize on the recent military successes. The re• sult was a tremendous victory for the incumbent government and imperial• ism. Some 402 Conservatives and Unionists were elected and opposed only by some 268 Labour, Liberal and Irish Nationalist MP's. What C. F. G.

Masterman called a "gargantuan banquet of social reform, housing, temper• ance and education," on the part of the Liberals, was turned down flat 13 by the electorate.

In the period which followed the general election the patriotic fervour which had played an important role in British political life over the last twelve months cooled. This cooling provided an opportunity for national self-inspection. The astonishment that many Englishmen had felt while on holiday on the Continent during the summer of 1900 at the unpopularity of Britain now turned to an acute feeling of international 14 isolation. • Moreover, the possibility first expressed by that organ of orthodox liberalism, the Economist, as early as 1851, of Britain being overhauled by the rapidly expanding economies of the United States and

Germany now showed definite signs of coming true.15 At the same time the growing rumours that the British race was deteriorating began to hold more credence. This new awareness of Britain's position was responsible for bringing together many different types—businessmen, eugenicists,

Fabians, industrialists, financiers, idealists, imperialists, militarists, philanthropists, scientists, socialists, social reformers, trades-unionists, 103 men of both old-line political parties and common working men—into a 16 national movement for efficiency.

The wide appeal of the National Efficiency movement meant that it necessarily included several opposing political philosophies and repre• sented a wide range of. vested interests. Nevertheless, a common bond of sufficient strength was found to keep it functioning as a cohesive whole. This common, bond concerned the physical and mental strength of the nation. Through it the needs of the least well-to-do became insep• arably joined to imperial interests, and social reform gained sufficient respectability to become a matter of major political importance. Not only did this concern for social reform create a new sense of community and a new patriotism, but it also allowed a new moral code to be estab• lished and a blue-print for social action to be formed. I

It is impossible here to describe in detail the origins and nineteenth-century background of the National Efficiency campaign.

Nevertheless, G. R. Searle's recent study, The Quest for National Effi• ciency: A Study in British Politics and Political Thought, 1899-1914, has shown by its lack of attention to the problem that the campaign can• not be put into proper perspective without a more profound analysis of 17 the movement's ideological roots. To understand how the National

Efficiency movement could function with so many vested interests to be appeased, it is necessary to see the campaign for National Efficiency both in relation to the major social forces affecting Victorian life and 104 as the natural culmination of the nineteenth-century reaction to what 18

Cobbett called the "System." Only in this way can the seemingly contra• dictory causes of the social legislation of the first decade of the twen• tieth century—the products of the National Efficiency campaign—be reconciled.

At the beginning of Victoria's reign two theoretically hostile forces—Utilitarianism and Evangelicism—were joined to create and rationalize middle-class modes of thought and conduct; a union which the famous French historian, Elie Hal^vy, thought contained the "fundamental 19 paradox" of Victorian society. On the one side lay the social and political thought of Jeremy Bentham and such Philosophic Radicals as

James Mill, and the economic thought of John Bright, Richard Cobden and the rest of the Manchester School. Such thought was cold, analytical, vigorously skeptical, sometimes anti-religious, and not without its own 20 antagonisms. It held that man was naturally good, pleasure seeking, and had an optimistic future providing he relied on reason rather than faith and obeyed the laws laid down by the classical economists. On the other side were the quasi-fundamentalist beliefs of a broad group of protestants.. Burdened by a profound sense of man's sinfulness, the

Evangelicals believed that salvation could only be obtained through good earthly actions. For this reason they were more concerned with how a man lived than with how he worshipped. In all things the Bible was the

Evangelicals' supreme and literal guide to conduct.

Opposition to the atomistic and mechanistic thinking of what may be termed the Benthamite-Evangelical orthodoxy came from many quarters. 105

During the mid-Victorian period Utilitarianism was softened by the intro• duction of humanistic values drawn from Wordsworth and Coleridge into 21

Bentham's felicific calculus. In Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill sug• gested that some pleasures were more important than others and that the 22 development of the human character was also worthy of consideration.

About the same time the laissez-faire economic theory of the Manchester

School received its first serious questioning. Even Utilitarians were forced to admit that subsistence and employment had increased faster 23 than population since Malthus' prophesy of catastrophe. This led John

Stuart Mill to assert that the distribution of wealth was not dependent on natural laws but on the laws and customs of society as determined by 24 the opinions and feelings of the ruling class. During the period of the so-called "Great Depression" social inquiries by statistical societies, the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science and the

Liberal-turned-Tory, Charles Booth, clearly denied Adam Smith's premise that were individuals to be left alone to pursue their own self-interest they would be led by an "Invisible Hand" to benefit society at large.

Indeed, Booth's giant survey of London, begun in the late 1880's, proved once and for all the existence of a large mass of working people who had 25 not benefitted from Britain's increased prosperity.

Prom about mid-century two forces began, to affect the Evangelical temper of the age. One of these was evolutionary theory. Influenced by

Malthus' Essay on Population, Charles Darwin came to the conclusion that a process of "natural selection" operated in the struggle for existence and led to the formation of a more favourable species. Published 106

eventually as The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859,

Darwin's theory contained no hint of a benevolent force, superior intel• ligence, or divine justice or purpose. Though Darwin did not immediately apply his theory to-the human species, his audience did. In this way his work not only fostered materialism but became a challenge to the moral assumptions of the period.and a direct threat both to the histor-

27 icity of the Bible and the basic principles of Christian faith. In short, if there was no perfectly created being, there was no Fall of

Man and no. Redemption. And if there was no original sin, there was no need for God to sacrifice his only son for man's salvation.

Between 1860.and the end of the century evolutionary theory was applied increasingly to the evolution of society and to political and

28 economic thought. Before 1880 the casual poor, or the 'residuum' as they were called at the time, were thought to exist only in isolated pockets in the big cities. Because they were not considered as posing a major threat to social harmony they seldom, attracted the attention of social investigators. What was more, the upper orders believed that any problem they did pose could be solved by philanthropic action. In the early 1880's a drastic change in social thought took place. The theory 29 of demoralization, the principle which governed the treatment of the poor, was replaced by the theory of urban degeneration.3^ At the root of this major re-orientation of social thought was the fear that the honest working man might be reduced to the level of the lowest common denomi• nator . 107

In 1883 G. R. Sims published a series of articles for the Daily

News under the title "How the Poor Live." These were followed in October by an anonymous pamphlet, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Enquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor. Both revealed, as the Royal Com- 31 mission they were responsible for establishing was to confirm, that a

serious housing shortage existed in London, and that the casual poor, far

from being a small percentage, in fact, constituted a substantial pro• portion of the working class. • Together with the formation of such

socialist groups as the Social Democratic Federation and the deepening economic depression, the concern these publications generated was respon•

sible for the widespread fear that the honest working man would be in•

fected by the 'residuum,' and for causing a wave of panic to spread 32

through the upper echelons of society.

Two other questions made the housing crisis a matter of the utmost urgency. One concerned the consequences of the agricultural depression.

If the theory of urban degeneration was correct did the continued influx of agricultural workers to the cities mean that the race would inevitably deteriorate? The other concerned the impact of humanitarian legislation and advances in medicine and sanitation. If these prevented the process of natural selection did they not compound the problem by allowing many 33 of the unfit to survive and multiply?

Such questions were particularly worrisome for those who took a special interest in the future of the British Empire. Such men as Lord

Brabazon, Samuel Smith, and Arnold White were very concerned about the 34 problems of the 'residuum' and urban degeneration. They considered 108 that.London's distress was an imperial problem, and believed that the 35 solution to.it demanded exceptional imperial measures. This line of argument led "social imperialists" to adopt an opposing point of view on such issues as free meals for school children to such philanthropic agencies as the COS which adhered rigidly to the moral code implicit in the Poor Law. Lord Brabazon, for example, regarded free dinners for needy children as an urgent necessity if further physical deterioration 36 was to be averted among the working-class population. Another scheme which attracted much attention among social imperialists was state-aided colonization. An initial proposal put forward by Lord Brabazon evoked 37 much criticism. J. H. Tuke believed that Brabazon's plan to settle the casual poor in the colonies would not be well received by the colonial authorities because he thought town-born labourers did not make good 38 farmers. To meet this objection Samuel Smith proposed that destitute children should be offered state assistance to immigrate to one of the colonies on condition.that they, first followed a course of technical education.^9

The suggestions made by the social imperialists in the 1880's were, as one of their number admitted, like voices crying in the wilder- 40 ness. The type of evolutionary argument that was listened to was more like that of the inveterate Liberal and individualist, Herbert 41

Spencer. Writing in the Contemporary Review shortly after the publi• cation of The Bitter Cry of Outcast London Spencer attempted to dis• courage government action to improve social conditions. He suggested that such intervention would totally prevent the beneficial workings of 109

42 the "survival of the fittest" which he believed was the sole guarantee 43 of progress.

By the 1890's, thanks to the Third Reform Act, there existed a very substantial section of the voting population who looked not to private charity to solve the problem of unemployment and poverty, but to the State. Consequently,.Spencerian type arguments declined in favour.

Nevertheless, there were those who continued to see a need to establish a unified theory of social evolution which would fully explain class differences without repudiating social-Darwinism. Such a man was

Benjamin. Kidd, a civil servant of Liberal leanings. He considered that the Marxists were the only group to have explained class antagonisms satisfactorily, and that.their theory was as anti-social as that of

Spencerian individualism. Kidd,. like Carlyle, Dickens, Kingsley, and 44

Ruskin before him, held that-Britain's first duty was towards the welfare of its own citizens, and that improvements in social conditions should come, if necessary, at the expense of "inferior" races and nations.

Such thinking led many Liberals and a good many Tories to the conclusion that the real struggle for existence was not between the various elements of British society but between the various nations and races of the 45 world. Kidd had no doubts that in such a struggle the Anglo-Saxon and Teuton races would do well. They had, he believed, higher "social 46 efficiency," the quality which led nations to greatness.

Shortly after the publication of Kidd's Social Evolution Karl

Pearson, a 'socialist' who adhered to Marxian economics but denied the 47 idea of class struggle and the role of revolution in history, wrote an 110

48 article for Fortnightly-Review which severely criticized Kidd and

Spencer for suggesting that socialism, was in opposition to natural selec•

tion. Pearson considered that it was totally wrong to believe that

socialism limited the economic competition between the individual mem•

bers of society and thus prevented progress. To the contrary, he main•

tained that there was no special power in socialism which either pre•

vented "physical selection"—the struggle of society against its physical

environment, disease, climate, physical wear and tear, etc.—or which

stopped the struggle between the superior and the inferior races. For

Pearson three factors affected natural, selection—intra-group struggle,

physical selection and extra-group struggle; and only the first could

be affected by socialism. What worried Pearson was the possibility of

a war with a major European power or a world .grain shortage. Either, he

believed, would destroy the British social system. "We should be

crushed in the extra-group struggle," he argued:

Because we have given too much play to intra-group competition, be• cause we have proceeded on the assumption that it is better to have a few prize, cattle among innumerable lean kine than a decently-bred and properly-fed herd.with no expectations at Smithfield.49

It was this kind of 'national socialism" which attracted many socialists, particularly such Fabians as Sidney Webb, to the idea of social imper•

ialism, and led Pearson, to .suggest that "no thoughtful socialist . . . would object to cultivate Uganda, at the expense of its present occupiers

50

if Lancashire were starving."

At the same time as Darwin was first expounding his theory of

natural selection certain liberal churchmen—or Broad Churchmen as they Ill were known at the time;—were in the process of preparing an attack on the theological rigidity of the Church of England. Though never more 51 than a small group of individuals with certain ideas in common these

Broad Churchmen were to effect a powerful influence over the Evangelical temper of the mid-Victorian period and the political and social thought of the remaining forty years of the nineteenth century. The Broad

Church movement owed much of its inspiration to Coleridge and to German thought. Broad Churchmen believed that the Bible should be subjected to 52 the same vigorous historical and scientific examination that all serious works of scholarship received, and considered that certain sec- 53 tions of the Scriptures were unsuitable as moral guides. Benjamin 54

Jowett, the leader of the second generation of Broad Churchmen, argued in his contribution to Essays and Reviews (1860), the group's most influential and representative work, that Christianity had to adapt it- 55 self to the best knowledge available. Thus, for some Christians faith became a matter of spiritual rather than literal truth, and the conflict between science and religion partly settled before it had really had time to develop.

Broad Churchmen considered it a duty of the Church to ameliorate the social dislocation created by industrialization. For this reason they favoured a National Church which could absorb the shock of popular democracy by reconciling class differences and by preparing the working class for a greater participation in the life of the nation. Broad

Churchmen hoped that such a Church would overcome the anti-social aspects 56 oculturf Benthamise of thm e antraditionad laissez-fairel rulin geconomics class. , but would preserve the high 112

An important off-shoot of the Broad Church movement and the idea of the National Church was the 'idealization' of the State. In the 57

"great .literary monument of this disposition" —Culture and Anarchy: An

Essay in Political and Social Criticism (1869)—Matthew .Arnold pointed out that the notion so familiar to antiquity and to contemporaries in

Europe of the State as a... body able to order the lives of individuals in 58 the general interest, was virtually unknown in.Britain. The failure to see the State in this light, he suggested, had resulted in the worship 59 of freedom for its own sake, and therefore in anarchy. This antipathy towards authority, Arnold argued elsewhere, was linked logically with . . 60 the British distrust of science and science training.

The years of the "Great Depression" which followed shortly after the close of the Franco-Prussian war represented a period of anxiety and great philosophical change for the British middle class. Three major social forces were to affect their thought and action. One was the development of the British Idealist School of philosophy. Another was the advance, in science and technology and the economic change which accompanied it. The third was imperialism. Each had the effect of turning British eyes on Germany.

Following the Second Reform Act many members of the middle class feared that the enfranchisement of the working class would lead to a harsh popular despotism, antipathetical to individual industry and achieve• ment.6"'" For many the fear of full-scale revolution was never too far out 62 of mind. Two questions particularly perplexed the Liberal intelli• gentsia who believed that their Party stood for administrative reform 113 and efficient government. What, they asked, was the point of reforming institutions if declining social discipline made it impossible for them to function effectively? And what was to become of the country if inter• ests abroad were to be sacrificed to a purely insular view of politics?

To 'old Liberals' such as A. V. Dicey, W. E. H. Lecky, H. S.

Maine, and J. F. Stephen who were steadily moving to the right, the answer to anarchic individualism was to be found in. more forceful and autocratic methods of government.63 To other intellectual Liberals like

Matthew Arnold the answer lay in the State's involvement in education.

At Oxford the Broad Church leader, Benjamin Jowett, had both a practical and a philosophical solution to the problem.

As Master of Balliol Jowett set out to make the college a "nursery 64 for statesmen." As a Greek scholar he made a considerable contribution towards the revival of Greek thought. This revival had the effect of turning attention away from hedonism and utilitarianism towards an ethic of self-perfection based on a theory of human nature within a metaphys• ical framework.65 As one of the few dons able to read German Jowett also stimulated the study of German idealism at Oxford.

It was under this administration that T. H. Green, a former stu• dent of Jowett's, became the Whyte Professor of Moral Philosophy. Green converted what had often been in Germany a justification for conservative policies to a practical.,programme attractive to the left wing of the

Liberal Party. Green became convinced that only German thinkers had realized that the primary task of modern philosophy was to find "formulae adequate to the action of reason as exhibited in nature and human society, 114 in art and religion," but was led to the conclusion that the political 66 application of German Idealism was irrelevant to British institutions.

Nevertheless, he considered that it was still possible to construct a philosophy of life consistent with his theological beliefs. Green found the solution in a new concept.of citizenship. Through it the British

Idealist School built a bridge which linked religion and political action.

By adding a political dimension to Victorian theology the eyes of those with troubled consciences,were turned away from a vision of salvation in the next world to the reality of social problems in this. By pro• viding a religious .motivation for the formation of social policies the educated middle class were inspired to go beyond considering that some- . thing should ..be done to doing something about the less fortunate.

Green's conception of citizenship was based on the notion that there was 68 a good common to both individuals and to society as a whole. Because he considered that "every injury to the health of an individual" was a 69

"public injury" he believed that it was necessary for society to take men as they found them. If they found them stumbling over such obstacles as drink, ignorance or poverty it was the State's duty to intervene and 70 remove the obstacles preventing a moral life. In the same way "any kind of property which . (realized) the will of one man at the expense of 71 stopping the realization of the many" was to be condemned. The advoca• tion of positive freedoms was in complete contrast to the harsh moral code implicit in the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 and the non- interventionist spirit of the prevailing politico-economic system. In• stead it implied that the material reality was not the only reality, that 115 individual freedoms were not necessarily anti-thetical to the growing authority of the State, and that certain actions were necessary for some 72 individuals to be free.to live moral lives.

Besides Jowett and Green, F. H. Bradley, D. G. Ritchie, Bernard

Bosanquet, Edward Caird, William Wallace and others played an important part in challenging existing attitudes towards the less fortunate. Funda- 73 mentally individualists at heart they rejected Gladstonian Liberalism, avoided Marxism, and developed a new democratic Liberalism with State action as an integral part. Together they inspired either directly or indirectly a whole generation of young middle-class people to do some- 74 thing personally about existing social conditions. S. G. Checkland has argued that because the Idealists "altered thinking about society at its social roots" their influence was greater than the earlier head- 75 on attacks of Carlyle and Ruskin on the older economic philosophies.

In their ardour for Germany and its scientific method Broad

Churchmen and Idealists were not alone. In 1903 Sir Norman Lockyer, the editor of the respected scientific periodical, Nature suggested to the

British Association for the Advancement of Science that British univer• sities should become "as much the insurers of future progress as battle- 7 6 ships are the insurers of the present power of states." In saying this

Lockyer was merely reiterating an opinion which had been held by many members of the British scientific community for more than thirty years.

In 1867 Dr. Lyon Playfair, the Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh 77

University and a man of considerable scientific eminence, had written a letter to Lord Taunton, the chairman of the Royal Commission inquiring 116 into the state of secondary education. Referring, to conversations he had had with other Jurors at the recent Paris Exhibition, Playfair stated:

I am sorry to say that, with very few exceptions, a singular accor• dance of opinion prevailed that our country has shown little inven• tiveness and made little progress in the peaceful arts of industry since 1862 ... So far as I could gather them by conversation, the one cause upon which there was most unanimity of conviction is that France, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland possess good systems of industrial education for the masters and managers of factories and workshops, and that England possesses none.78

Many British economists, inventors and manufacturers also showed their admiration for Germany's industrial use of science and technology, and noted with a certain degree of bitterness that the German economy had expanded rapidly behind high tariff walls. Immediately after the

French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war W. C. Aitken, the Senior Vice-

President of the Birmingham and Midland Institute, told his institute that the German victory came as the result of science training:

From masses of steel produced by the metalurgical knowledge of Krupp of Essen—converted into ordnance by the industrially-educated engi-. neers and workmen—served on the battlefield by artillerists trained to a perfect knowledge of the laws which guided projectiles in their course.79

In 1886 the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Depression of

Industry and Trade brought attention to the increasing severity of German 80 competition in home and export markets. From about this time the British press was full of. gloomy tales of lost export markets and poor 81

British performance abroad. The general bitterness created by Germany's success was made apparent by the popularity of E. E. Williams' Made in 117

Germany. Published in 1896 at the end of the "Great Depression," it not only encapsulated the essence of British feelings at the time, but became the symbol of Britain's predicament. All too often British industries were presented as being technologically obsolete and their business practices old-fashioned in contrast to German manufacturers who spent considerable sums on industrial research and incorporated the latest in• novations in production and marketing. Sir Joseph Swan, for example, the inventor-manufacturer and fellow, of the Royal Society who played an important role in the foundation of the electric lamp industry, stated when recording, his impressions of the Paris Exhibition of 1900 that:

Besides Krupps, England presents a sorry spectacle. Here and there you see something English; but one is struck by the fewness of the English exhibits and the general want of "go" they indicate. If the light exists with us, it is hidden somewhere.82

Thus by the 1880!s the British middle class had been converted from a group that was largely prepared to let nature take its course, to one which actively sought both a more efficient and scientific approach to business and government, and the improvement of social conditions among the less fortunate. As yet, however, the middle class, with a few 83 notable exceptions had not realized that their two objectives were mutually dependent.

The more competitive economic climate which developed over the last three decades of the nineteenth century, made conditions much tougher for British interests abroad. Unfortunately, neither of the two established British intellectual traditions—the Benthamite and the

Coleridgian—provided any direction by which Britain could fulfill her 118 role as a Great Power in a world in which 'ideological' presuppositions 84 had ceased to be relevant. The thought of the Cambridge historian,

John R. Seeley, in whom the Broad Churchman, the idealist, and the imper• ialist were one, is therefore of particular importance because it not only offered a.choice of action but began to show how an efficient State was dependent on the social and physical conditions of the working class.

R.' T. Shannon has suggested in his brilliant essay on Seeley that:

His contributions on the Broad Church in relation to the national idea are not in themselves indispensable; his contribution of a philosophy of imperialism was not in itself unique. His unique and indispensable role was to link the two through the process of histor• ical moralization: to make the idealized State also the power State. To the "old Liberal" reaction against "Mill-Gladstonism" associated particularly with Fitzjames.Stephen, Maine, Dicey and Lecky, Seeley . . . added the missing link.^5

Seeley demonstrated in Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age (1878) that the Prussian State's willingness to offer moral leadership and to implement cultural, economic and social reforms following its defeat by Napoleonic France was responsible for 86

Germany becoming a Great Power. In his most influential work, The

Expansion of England (1883) Seeley argued that the future Great Powers—

Russia and the United States—were easily discernible because they con- 87 sisted of large continuous tracts of land. He maintained that the

British public had a choice—either to build a new Stein and a large sea- based empire,.or to watch as their country was reduced to the level of 88 a second-rate European Power. For Seeley, the Broad Churchman, there was but one response. The British had a moral duty to maintain the 89 country's status as a World Power. His answer as a historian was to 119 replace the traditional 'Whig' interpretation of British history—one in which the growth of constitutional liberties was paramount—with a new 90 theme, the growth of Britain as a World Power. His solution as an imperialist was the formation of an imperial federation in which the

Anglo-Saxon colonies would have equal partnership and guarantee the popu- 91 lation, the territory,. and the economic resources —"a world-Venice, 92 with the sea for streets, Greater Britain."

II

The real starting point of the National Efficiency movement came only a few weeks after the disastrous Liberal defeat at the polls in the

"Khaki Election." On 16 November 1900, the Liberal ex-Prime Minister,

Lord Rosebery, took the opportunity of his rectoral address to the Uni• versity of Glasgow to ask the nation to indulge in self-examination.

According to the London Times, he feared that the Empire would be lost through complacency if periodical national stock-taking was not pursued.

Only a virile imperial race, he argued, strong both in mind and body, could survive and maintain the largest imperial domain in the history of the world. As a result, he requested the nation to ask itself if it was fit for such a prodigious inheritance. In this regard he had three specific areas in mind for closer scrutiny. First, the universities needed to ensure that their programmes, were providing the qualified people required to administer an empire on business lines. Second, government should examine how urban life could be improved as the exist• ing slums and rookeries of the big cities were no place to rear the 120

able-bodied rank-and-file necessary to keep the wheels of empire turning.

Third, the business world would be advised to follow the example of

Germany's thoroughness and scientific method if it wished to avoid being

93 left behind. Lord Rosebery's speech therefore recognized the need for an all-encompassing programme which would modernize institutions, bring education in line with the needs of the twentieth century, improve the health of the nation and the conditions of the cities, and have businesses run more scientifically.

Lord Rosebery's speech led both to an attempt to form a new

94 political party of national efficiency under his leadership, and to a close examination by the British people of their economic, political and social system. The formation of a party of national efficiency failed because Lord Rosebery proved to be a reluctant leader, and because a change occurred in the standings of the established political parties.

The British people's examination of their economic, political and social system, on the other hand, had long-term repercussions, and led eventually to the formation of a national blue-print for social action.

To understand why Lord Rosebery's speech was initially so influ• ential, and yet why this attempt to form a party of national efficiency eventually failed, it is necessary to consider the state of party politics at the time. By.the close of 1900 there were already marked signs that the Conservative and Unionist Government was losing the public's confi• dence. Even before the country went to the polls in October, twenty-four constituencies had rejected Conservative or Unionist candidates at bi- elections. Though the "Khaki Election" provided the Government with a 121 majority of 134 seats, a considerable margin for an incumbent, an exami• nation of the election results shows that approximately 47 per cent of 95 the electorate voted against the Government and, presumably, against the war. In the months which followed the general election enthusiasm for government policies continued to decline. Even long-term supporters .96 of Lord Salisbury began to doubt the aging Prime Minister's leadership.

By comparison the Liberal Party was seen to be in complete disarray.

The war had divided the Party into three camps. At one end of the

Party's political spectrum were the Liberal Imperialists, of 'Limps' as such men as H. H. Asquith, Sir Henry Fowler, R. B. Haldane, and Sir

Edward Grey were called colloquially. In the middle was a group of men who reluctantly supported the war. At the other extreme were the 'pro-

Boers' who adhered to Gladstone's 'Little England' conception of empire.

This group was small in number but included such influential men as

John Burns, Herbert Gladstone, .Henry. Labouchere, Lord Morley, and the young Welsh leader, David.Lloyd George. Initially Sir Henry Campbell-

Bannerman, the Party's leader since Gladstone's death in 1898, had tried to retain some semblance of party unity and order by steering a middle course between the two extremes. However, startling news concerning 97 the treatment and conditions experienced by Boer women and children in concentration camps brought to light by Emily Hobhouse, led Campbell-

Bannerman to denounce the war publicly. This shift in position brought into the open a fear that the Liberal Party might split irrevocably which many had held privately for as long as a year. This situation created a kind of political power vacuum. The 122 neophyte Labour Representation Committee whose formation had even been lost among the news of the relief of Ladysmith and the capture of the 98 Boer general, Cronge, was neither strong enough nor sufficiently 99 organized to bridge the gap that the division among the Liberals and the lack of confidence in the Conservatives and Unionists had created.

Under such circumstances Lord Rosebery, as an ex-Prime Minister, would automatically have commanded a certain amount of respect and held the public ear. However, it was precisely because he had managed to stay out of the Liberal Party internal squabbles, and above the criticism of government that he proved so successful at cutting across party lines and class interests, and drawing such a wide measure of support to his policy of business principles and efficiency in government.

Support for Rosebery's policy came from many quarter. At one end of the political spectrum were managers of Conservative newspapers like Moberly Bell of the London Times. In the middle were the Liberal

Imperialists, men such as Asquith, Haldane and Grey, for whom Rosebery had a natural affinity. At the other end were members of the Fabian

Society such as G. B. Shaw and the Webbs. The help which Moberly Bell and other Conservative newspapermen gave was obviously of key importance in getting Rosebery's views into the public eye. Likewise, the efforts made by such men as Richard Haldane in building up an organization were crucial. However, the work produced by Sidney Webb deserves to be covered in some depth because, it proved invaluable in a philosophic sense.

During the summer of 1901, at a time when the Liberal Imperialists 123

100 believed they were fighting for their political lives, R. B. Haldane

and G. B. Shaw successfully encouraged the Webbs to join the Rosebery

camp.1^1 This led Sidney Webb to write his famous attack on Gladstonian

Liberalism, "Lord Rosebery's Escape from Houndsditch," for Nineteenth

Century. This article was extremely influential for a number of reasons.

Because Webb himself, with all his various contacts, was the author,

National Efficiency soon began to appeal to a much broader cross-section 102

of society than Lord Rosebery could muster. At a time when the

Labour Representation Committee was requesting Trade Union support for

the idea of independent Labour candidates, Webb was calling for a revi•

talized opposition—one which could capture again the position as the

political organ of the progressive instinct. They had lost it, he said,

because England had become a "new people" in the last twenty or thirty

years. Men's minds, he claimed, had gone through as distinct a change

as in Elizabethan days:

We have become aware, almost in a flash, that we are members of a community ... The Labourer in the slum tenement, competing for employment at the factory gate, has become conscious that his comfort and his progress depend, not wholly or mainly on himself, or on any other individual, but on the proper organization of his Trade Union and the activity of the factory inspector. The shopkeeper or the manufacturer sees his prosperity wax or wane, his own industry and sagacity remaining the same, according to the government of the city, the efficiency with which the nation is organized, and the influence which his Empire is able to exercise in the councils, and conse• quently in the commerce, of the world.

Webb, in fact, felt that the rising generation of voters was deadly tired

of the old Gladstonian Liberalism which still thought in individuals;

believed in freedom of contract, supply and demand, and voluntarism in 124 philanthropy and religion, and was consequently axiomatically hostile to 104 the State and unsympathetic to the deliberate organization of Empire.

What men felt and wanted corrected, he thought, was their sense of shame: What is in their minds is a burning feeling of shame at the failure of England—shame for the lack of capacity of its governors, shame for the inability of Parliament to get through even its routine busi• ness, shame for the absence of grip and resourcefulness of our states• men, shame for the pompous inefficiency of every branch of our public administration, shame for the slackness of our merchants and traders that transfer our commercial supremacy to the United States, shame for the supineness which looks on unmoved at the. continued degreda- tion of our race by drunkenness and gambling, slum life, and all the horrors of the sweated trades, as rampant to-day in all our centres of population as they were.when officially revealed fifteen years ago. This sense of shame has yet to be transmitted into political action.x05

Webb's article was also important because it incorporated T. H. Green's notions of freedom. , Webb.held that the ordinary elector was no longer interested in nineteenth-century concepts, but instead, desired corporate freedom:

Freedom for his Trade Union to Bargain Collectively, freedom for his cooperative society to buy and sell and manufacture, freedom for his municipality to supply all the common needs of the town, freedom, above all, from the narrow insularity which keeps his nation backing, "on principle" out of its proper place in the comity of the world. In short, the opening of the twentieth century finds us all, to the dismay of the old-fashioned individualist, "thinking in communities."11

In one sense Webb's writing was crucial to the development of

National Efficiency as a political platform. The incorporation of the

"national minimum,." which according to Bentley Gilbert, was Sidney Webb's 107 most important contribution.to social thought, made National Efficiency generally acceptable. Webb saw in the "national minimum" a vehicle which 125 political leaders could use to attract the mass of unpolitical citizens.

By utilizing it, the open sore, represented by the eight million people who Sir Robert Griffen had pointed out were living on a total family in• come of twenty shillings or less per week, could be healed, and the first 108 step towards National Efficiency established. According to Sidney

Webb the "national minimum", was required not simply for the comfort of the British workers, but to ensure the success of British industry in world markets. At one point Webb stated, "when a man is ill, the only profitable thing for the community is to cure him as thoroughly as pos- 109 sible with the least possible delay." The method he suggested for enacting this principle went further than the provision of an all- encompassing. Factory Act which dictate minimum levels and standards of education, leisure and wages for all workers. Instead he advocated minimum levels for the social environment as well. Can we any longer afford, he asked, "as a mere matter of business" to have the 'submerged fifth' "housed, washed and watered worse than our horses?""'""''0

The implications of the "national minimum"for the Poor Law authorities were considerable. While the Government had.legislation at hand for enforcing minimum sanitary and public health standards in most urban areas, the Local Government Board had largely failed to enforce these regulations or to introduce new improvements. As every Medical

Officer of Health knew, proper enforcement could reduce the death-rate by as much as five per thousand and thus save the country several millions of pounds. For this reason Webb believed that the enforcement of the "national minimum" would necessitate a new point of view being 126 adopted at the Local Government Board and great extension being made to municipal activities in both the country and the town.11"'" Specifically he believed:

The policy of National Efficiency, applied to the. Poor Law, would replace the present critical and repressive attitude of the Local Government Board by a positive programme of Poor Law Reform. What an•energetic President would take in hand'would be, not only the vigorous discouragement, of outdoor relief to the able-bodied (women no less than men), but an equally vigorous insistence on the humane treatment of the aged, the most scientific provision for the sick and above all, the best rearing of the "children of the State."H2

While Webb's article was not only important for making National

Efficiency a viable political.platform with widespread appeal, it also showed the wide range of programmes with which society would have to deal in the twentieth century. The replacement of the present "romantic and incapable soldiering" with a system of "scientific fighting" was recommended,:- so too. were reforms of the Houses of Parliament and local taxation. In addition, a. new "energetic rehandling of the Budget" and 113 changes in education were required. With regard to secondary educa• tion Webb thought that the Government's failure to enact its proposals was a public disgrace. What was needed, he believed, was "a large- hearted plan" that would put Britain's educational facilities and ser• vices on a par with her international rivals. Only this would fire the 114 imagination and patriotism of. the man in the street.

It was about the time of the publication of Webb's article that interest in the question of national physical deterioration really began to develop. The first stirrings came with the publication of two books:

Arnold White's Efficiency and Empire, and Seebohm Rowntree's Poverty: A 127

Study of Town Life. In the former White specifically pointed to two important sources to substantiate his claim that the physical condition of the average British working man was far from satisfactory. He noted that of 11,000 men who had offered themselves for war service at the

Manchester recruiting centre between October of 1899 and July of 1900 as many as 8,000 were found completely unfit to carry a rifle or to stand up to the rigours of military discipline; and that of the remaining

3,000 only 1,200 were considered to have attained, the moderate standard of muscle power and chest measurement required by the military. Conse• quently, he concluded, "two out of every three men willing to bear arms in the Manchester district are virtually invalids," and reminded his readers that "there is no reason to think that the Lancashire towns are peopled by a stock inferior in stamina to that of the other large towns 115 in the United Kingdom." In addition, he noted that many London con• tractors imported labour from the countryside because the town dwellers did not have sufficient strength.6 Rowntree added further evidence to White's argument- He noted that of the 3,600 volunteers examined at the Leeds, Sheffield and York depots between 1897 and 1900 26.5 per cent were rejected as totally unfit for service while a further 29 per cent were provisionally accepted as 'specials.' From these figures he con• cluded that if the physical condition of the working man in the rest of the country was no better at least 50 per cent would be considered as being incapable of military duty, and went on to note:

Even if we set aside considerations of physical and mental suffering, and regard the question only in its strictly economic and national aspects, there can be no doubt that the facts set forth in this chap• ter indicate a condition of things the serious import of which can hardly be over-estimated.±±7 128

118

Though widely read, these books created no immediate major outcries.

Nevertheless, W. T. Steed, the pacifist editor of Review of Reviews,

considered Rowntree's observation that "the labouring class receive upon

average about 25 per cent less food than has been proven by scientific

experts .to be necessary for the maintenance of physical efficiency" was 119

very important in view of the economic challenge facing the country.

By comparison, an article, now known to have been written by

Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice, but published under the pseudonym

'Miles' in the January issue of the influential periodical, Contemporary

Review, created a considerable stir. The author pointed out that the

proposed Militia Ballot would not be necessary if all those applying for

military service were physically fit. In addition, he claimed the pro•

portion of only two out of every five men being fit to bear arms repre- 120

sented a national danger. He cited three major reasons for this

disgraceful state of affairs. First, he drew the relationship between That the teeth of men who are of age to enter the army are in our good health, good digestion, and good teeth. generation so defective as to constitute one of the most serious causes contributing to the want of protection between those willing to enlist and those who ever become effective soldiers is therefore attributed, at all events primarily, to the fact that they did not receive proper nutrition during the period of childhood.121

122

Second, he established flat feet as a significant factor. Last, and most important of all, he claimed that "the immense proportion of the

stunted, anaemic specimens of humanity" was caused by the fact that they 123 were themselves the children of children. A second article by Maurice appeared exactly a year later. A 129 contemporary, J. M. Mackintosh, reported that a "vague growing uneasiness about the physical condition of our recruits was crystalized" by this second article which was the "immediate cause of the appointment of the important and effective Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterior- 124 ation" which soon followed. Maurice himself indicated that "National

Health: A Soldier's Study" was the result of considerable public interest.

It explicitly demanded the larger national research that Charles Booth 125 had requested, and called upon the medical profession to lead the way.

By 1903 concern over the physical state of the British working class had almost reached its zenith. In May of that year George Shee wrote an article on the subject of the "Deterioration in the National

Physique" for Nineteenth Century and After which favoured compulsory military service. He pointed to the fact that the number of recruits under the standard height of five feet six inches had increased between

1845 and 1900. In. 1845 only 105 men per thousand were under the standard height: by 1887 528 per thousand were. By 1900 this figure had risen to

565. In addition, he showed how the Government had been forced to lower its height standards progressively from five feet five inches in 1872 to five feet in 1900. At the same, time he noted that continental armies had improved since the adoption of compulsory military service, and backed this statement up with the declaration of Lieutenant-Colonel C. M.

Douglas that "as the result of three months training, the recruit gains 126 in weight and height, girth of chest and limbs."

Of course there were many other aspects to the National Efficiency campaign than simply the ones mentioned above. In the month-and-a-half 130 which followed Lord Rosebery's initial speech the London Times alone pub- 127 lished at least nine major articles on inefficiency in British industry.

The periodical press, and especially the National Review, soon became inundated with articles dealing with one or another of the main themes 128 of the National Efficiency campaign. Books were published which examined the ability of the British, school system to fulfill public 129 needs. Government documents included severe criticism of Britain's 130 industrial leadership. Writers such as Ramsden Balmforth, Robert

Blatchford, Karl Pearson, G. B. Shaw, Sidney Webb, Arnold White, and later H. G. Wells, continued-to illustrate the influence of Charles 131

Darwin and the eugenics movement on the National Efficiency campaign.

Sports and Physical exercise were promoted by groups interested in in• creasing physical efficiency. Other factions, more concerned with the development of better working-habits, sponsored such organizations as the Boy Scouts and the Boys' Brigade which fostered discipline, self- 132 confidence and temperance. Even the royal family got into the act. The Prince of Wales in language couched in similar fashion to the Duke of Edinburgh's more recent 'fingers out' speech, told the nation to 133

'wake up!' Clubs were started which provided intellectuals and poli• ticians with an opportunity to discuss the various themes of the National

Efficiency campaign. The most important of these was the Co-Efficients.

Started by the Webbs in November of 1902, it brought together most of the more prominent names in the National Efficiency campaign. At first twelve men each with specific portfolios, were present: Leo S. Amery

(the army), Carlyon Bellair (the navy), Sir Clinton Dawkins (banking), 131

Sir Edward Grey (foreign affairs), R. B. Haldane (law), W. A. S. Hewins

(economics), Leo Maxse (journalism), Halford Mackinder (geography), W.

Pember Reeves (colonial affairs), Bertrand Russell (philosophy and science), Sidney Webb (municipal affairs), H. G. Wells (literature).

Later Arthur Balfour, Sir Henry Birchenough, Julien Corbett, J. L.

Garvin, C. F. G. Masterman, Viscount Milner, W. F. Monypenny, Theodore

Morrison, .Henry Newbolt, F. S. Oliver, G. B. Shaw, and Josiah Wedgewood 134 attended. Lord Rosebery who did not like the Webbs, never attended, but did attach his name and,influence to just about every project for higher education formulated in the early years of the century, and con• tinued to make speeches reiterating his demand for a bold policy of 135 administrative, educational and social efficiency. And last and by no means least, the months which followed Lord Rosebery's Glasgow speech were those which saw Kipling's verse at its most influential. In

January of 1902 the Times printed "The Islanders"—Kipling's savage attack on the decadence of the British nation.136 Later his poem, "The

Lesson, 1899-1902," captured the public's desire to repair British deficiencies.

With the coming of the end of the war in southern Africa and the reintroduction of a revitalized Liberal Party, as the result of the

Education Bill, to the House of Commons, the need and opportunity for a 137 party of National Efficiency under Lord Rosebery faded away. Never• theless, the elements of the National Efficiency campaign remained on the forefront of the political stage. If anything they actually increased in importance. 132

Late in 1902, following the alarm sounded by Lord Selborne, the'-

First Lord of the Admiralty, in a cabinet memorandum about the composi-

138 i tion and design of the German fleet, new concerns about the intentions of Germany were generated. These developed into a case of Germanophobia.

By April of .1903 the Foreign Office felt obliged to drop their plan to

139 co-operate with the Germans on.the Baghdad railway project. G. R.

Searle has suggested that a 'cold war' atmosphere developed between

Britain and Germany, and that this prevented any return in Britain of complacency and over self-assurance, and "emphasized the pressing impor• tance of carrying through reforms that would strengthen the 'scientific' basis of British society and administration and increase the Empire's readiness for war."

In fact, over the next few years interest in the way Germans did things attracted a trememdous amount of attention. One of the largest

studies was produced by Arthur Shadwell. His two volume work compared

the industrial efficiency of Germany with that of the United States and

141

Britain. However, it was the belief that German living conditions were better and produced more physically and mentally capable individuals

to man the guns and wheels of industry which really appeared to hit home.

T. C. Horsfall noted in The Example of Germany: The Improvement of

Dwellings and Surroundings of the People that the streets of Germany were more or less free from sickly-looking, ill-developed and undersized 142

individuals that were so common in the great towns and cities of Britain.

The cause of this better physical condition was largely put down

to two specific practices incorporated in the German system. The first 133 of these was the Bismarckian system of social insurance: the other con• cerned the German Army system. Sir John Gorst, a politician who was later to play a crucial role in the development of legislation to improve the health of children, studied the German social insurance programme in detail, and concluded that both the central and local governments of

Germany were much more efficient in promoting the welfare of the people • • 143 than those in Britain.

It has already been argued that certain factions in the National

Efficiency movement attempted to sponsor institutions which fostered discipline, sobriety and vigour rather than directly to encourage the welfare of the people. It was from the study of institutions which would train people to be more disciplined, and hence make them more efficient, that a greater understanding of the importance of the phys• ical conditions of the people was reached. With the coming of the increased fear of Germany's military and economic potential the German

Army, naturally enough, came under the closest scrutiny. Articles such as J. L. Bashford's "The German Army System and How it Works" appeared from time to time in.the periodical press and concluded that the army was an invaluable asset in.improving the industrial efficiency of the labour force because of the. habits of neatness, order and discipline 144 that it inculcated. However, it was the connection drawn by such men as Sir Henry Birchenough between the need.for discipline and the need for physical fitness which once again drew attention back to the physical condition of those entering the British Army. In his article, "Compulsory

Education and Compulsory Military Training," he not only argued that the 134 army as the nation's chief school of physical fitness and moral disci• pline represented the foundation stone of National Efficiency, but also that universal military training, even if Britain's military requirements 145 were not as pressing as they were, should be advocated.

The matter of whether the British race was physically deterior• ating was first brought into debate in Parliament as early as March of

1902. In that month two events occurred which were to prove important in the development of better health standards. The first was a debate concerning the standards.of men applying to join the army. On 7 March

Arthur Lee (Hampshire, Fareham). drew the House' attention to the deplor• able standard of recruits:

We had reduced every kind of measurement, the age, and the weight, and now we are going to take men with false teeth, and even with glass eyes—or eye glasses—he did not know which. 146

On the same day the Irish Nationalist MP, John Dillon (Mayo East), claim• ing to have been a student of recruiting returns for some years offered the opinion that "the physique of the British nation was rapidly deter• iorating." He complained that the recruiting returns were incomplete.

They ought, he reminded the House, "to be important documents bearing upon the physique of the population." As the returns showed that 640 out of every thousand men came from agricultural backgrounds, he claimed

"the Government were talking about keeping up a great army, and all the time they were looking on while the sources from which these recruits alone could be drawn were being destroyed." He asked rhetorically:

"judging from the condition of some of the recruits who had been accepted, 135

what in the name of God must have been the conditions of those who were

147 rejected?"

In the same month as the first debates in Parliament the Royal

Commission on Physical Training (Scotland) was set up. It was specifi• cally requested to estimate how extensive physical training programmes were in Scottish schools, and how such programmes might be made to con• tribute towards the strength of the nation. When the Commission re• ported in 1903 it made a number of very interesting observations and recommendations. Witness after witness noted the need for better

148 feeding. Several provided warnings of the possible dangers that underfeeding could have on school children. One witness stated that if the authorities were going to develop the physical training of children they would have to be on their.guard, against overworking them, and noted that even light exercise could do positive injury to children who

149 were underfed. Dr. Clement Dukes warned: Children can exist, when doing no mental or physical work, on a bare subsistence diet, but . . . a bare subsistence diet becomes a star• vation diet when mental or bodily work is added.150

However, on the question of whether society was justified in improving the physical condition.of a large number of future citizens at a cost of removing parental responsibility, the Commissioners could make no

. . . 151 decision.

Besides specific references to physical exercises. the Commissioners suggested, that school children be medically inspected and systematic records kept of all physical and health statistics. To do this they recom• mended the addition of a small number of medical and sanitary experts to 136 the inspecting staff. In addition, they advocated co-operation with voluntary agencies to overcome the problem of underfeeding. Where this proved inadequate the Commissioners believed that powers should be given for local authorities to provide a meal and to take steps to recover the 152 cost from the parents. Unfortunately, the Commission's Report failed to attract much attention in the nation's capital and its recommendations to gain any immediate supporters.

The same was not true of a memorandum prepared in April by Sir

William Taylor, the Director-General of the Army Medical Department, which was sent to the Secretary of State for War and published later as 153 a Parliamentary Paper. According to the Lancet, the debate over physical deterioration became acute from this point onward. The press 154 was swamped by affirmations and "silly and impractical suggestions."

On 6 July 1903 members in the House of Lords called for a full-scale inquiry. The Earl of Meath, a man with diplomatic experience in Berlin and consequently well versed in German social welfare schemes and the causes of German industrial successes, summarized the debate to date.

He reminded their Lordships that the Royal Commission on Physical Train• ing (Scotland) 1903 had stated:

There exists, in Scotland an undeniable degeneration of individuals of the classes where food.and environment are defective, which call for the attention and amelioration in obvious ways . . . .155

His evidence from the Royal Commission on Secondary Education showed that the more intelligent classes and the more favoured classes were taller and heavier than the less intelligent and the less favoured. Consequently 137 he remarked, "without proper feeding we can not have a sturdy nation. It must be seen that pure fresh milk be brought within the reach of the poor both in town and country ..." He praised the Battersea Borough

Council for setting up a milk depot but pointed out that Berlin had had a perambulating milk-and-cream-cart service since 1870, and that their carts were all locked to. prevent infection. He cut fresh ground by noting that the recruiting returns for the Royal Navy and the Royal

Marines were no better than those for the British Army. Once again he compared the situation with that in Germany. There, he stated, 80 per cent of those presenting themselves for military service were found to be physically fit. All these indications led him to the conclusion that 156 a Royal Commission or Committee of Inquiry was needed.

In response to the Earl, of Meath's demand which was supported by the Bishop of Ripon, the Lord President of the Council, the Duke of

Devonshire, promised to.place the Taylor minute on the table and to con- 157 suit with the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. It appears from the Minutes, of Evidence of the Inter-departmental Committee Report on Physical Deterioration that he had already contacted the College of 158

Physicians as early as 11 June 1903. On 25 July, only two days before the formal reply of the College of Physicians, the British Medical

Journal appears to have become convinced that race deterioration was a lc possibility and that the situation warranted a full-scale, investigation.

Nearly a month after the reply of the Royal College of Surgeons the Privy Council announced,the formation of an. Inter-departmental Com• mittee, not the Royal Commission that many had expected and which the 138

Duke of Devonshire had given the House the impression would be forth• coming.160 When one remembers that the Royal Commission of Physical

Training (Scotland) had already reported on 31 March 1902, and had re• ceived scant attention,161 the selection of this lower ranked committee is particularly interesting. In fact, recent students of the 'Origins of the Welfare State,' such as Bentley Gilbert, have suggested that the lack of attention given.to the Scottish Royal Commission and the delay in naming a committee of investigation clearly exemplify the extreme reluctance with, which the Unionist administration approached matters of

162 social reform.

Pressures from various.quarters forced the Government to enlarge the scope of the inquiry and allowed.the committee of seven civil servants to place before Parliament and the public a document similar 163 in approach to a Royal Commission. After twenty-eight days of evi• dence from, sixty-eight, witnesses the Report of the Inter-departmental 164

Committee on Physical Deterioration was published. The Report indi• cated that there was no proof of general inheritable degeneracy among the British working classes, but at the same time it gave tacit approval to the assumption that there was physical deterioration among the group 165 from which the recruits for the military came.

Among the causes of degeneration indicated by the Report urban• ization, with its associated problems of overcrowding, pollution, and alcoholism, was thought to be the most important. The Report indicated that town planning was superior in Germany;166 sunlight deprivation as 167 the result of pollution caused anaemic conditions; and that 139 back-to-back houses and .common lodging houses were still in extensive 168 use. With regard to drunkenness the Committee concluded that it was the "most potent" and "deadly agent" of physical deterioration next to urbanization. Moreover, the Committee believed that because the only relief for many people from the psychological ill-effects of bad housing, poor nutrition, depressed and polluted surrounding, and long hours of labour in over-heated and badly ventilated rooms, was the "excitement of town life," no demonstration of the connection between alcoholism and such factors was necessary. The question of working-class diets played an important part in 170 the proceedings. With the exception of one man, the Committee and all those who gave evidence agreed that the effects of improper or in• sufficient food in determining physique were prominent causes of degen-

171 eration. They believed that the average man daily fell short of the necessary 3,500 units of energy and the 125 grammes of.'proteid' needed 172 to maintain physical efficiency. They concluded.that the purchase of alcoholic stimulants, the cost and availability of food, bad teeth, betting, food adulteration, and the lack of suitable cooking facilities . . 173 prevalent in overcrowded living quarters were causes of poor nutrition.

What happened ;to the new-born and the children of Britain was the question which most worried the Inter-departmental Committee. Evidence clearly indicated that infant mortality had not decreased over the pre• vious twenty-five years and. that illegitimate children had enormously greater mortality-rates. Moreover, at least half of the deaths in the 174 first year of life occurred in the first three months. 140

Responsibility for these alarming statistics was primarily attri• buted to the reduction of breast-feeding among working-class women. The main reason for this change of habit was thought to be the return to work of the mother as soon as possible after giving birth. This prema• ture resumption of employment, the Committee believed, could be explained by the death of the husband, his lack of work or insufficiency of income, desertion by the child's father, the mother's fear of losing her job, or simply the preference of many women for factory work rather than domestic 175 . . service. The reduction.in breast-feeding meant that large sections of the working classes had. to rely on cow's milk, although evidence showed 176 that it was nearly impossible to obtain uninfected milk. Parental ignorance and child neglect also came under attack by the Committee. The discovery that deaths from overlaying occurred mainly on Friday and 177 Saturday nights had obvious implications. A failure to guard children against fires, a lack of ventilation and poor sleeping conditions were 178 other causes of concern. Even artificial nipples were censured by the

Committee: One of the most noxious practices described is the habit of giving india-rubber nipples to suck . . . (This has) the effect of causing contraction of the roof of the mouth and air passages at the back of the nose, which is prejudicial to proper breathing and also instru• mental in introducing foul germs into the system by virtue of the dirt accumulated.

Though the Committee were greatly alarmed by the dangers to which working-class infants were exposed, they saw cause for even greater concern in the evidence provided by the medical profession about the diet of the working-class child. Dr. Eicholz concluded that as many as 141

121,000, or 16 per cent of the children in London elementary schools 180 were underfed. In Manchester not less than 15 per cent were thought 181 to be undernourished. . In Leeds Dr. Hall estimated that as many as 50 per cent of the children in a poor school suffered from rickets, and that not too far away in a more well-to-do school the figure was only 182 about 8 per cent. Dr. Robert Hutchison, a physician at the London

Hospital and perhaps Britain's leading authority on nutrition, suggested that insufficient food during the critical period of growth in the school 183 years could lead to children being permanently stunted. Dr. Collis of the London School Board was even more emphatic. He estimated that 18> as much as nine-tenths of all child sickness derived from malnutrition.

The Inter-departmental Committee Report on Physical Deterioration was without doubt the most.far-ranging social document produced by the

British Government to date. All together the Committee placed before the Government and the public some fifty-three specific proposals for improving the social conditions of Britain.. An analysis of the reforms recommended shows that there were a number of areas in which the Com• mittee wished, further.information. To this end they suggested the set• ting up of a permanent anthropometric survey, a register of sickness through the Poor Law Medical Officers' Returns, a strictly scientific enquiry into the physiological cause and effects of over-fatigue, as recommended by the Brussels Congress, a more detailed analysis of infant mortality, still-births and causes of death statistics, an investigation of the effects of sterilization (e.g., milk), a Commission of Inquiry into the prevalence and effects of syphilis, an investigation into the 142

extent and nature of. the increase in Lunacy in Ireland, and inquiries

into vagrancy and defective children. The Committee pointed out several

areas which they believed should be covered by fresh legislation. These

included the provision of open spaces, cooking grates, school meals

medical inspections for children and special magistrates for juvenile

cases, and regulations controlling juvenile smoking, alcohol consumption, milk retailing, food adulteration, female employment, and building. In

185

addition, the compulsory notification of syphilis was recommended.

The Report is important not only because it attempted to estab•

lish a new blue-print for social action, but also because it contained

severe, though often veiled, criticism of the philosophy and method of

operation of the Local Government Board. At one point in the text there

appears the comment:

It appears, to the Committee that in regard to food, as in other matters, there is something wanting to the ideal of the Local Government Board as a department of health, and that it is desirable that this aspect of the Board's administrative functions should receive greater attention.186

In order to rectify this position.the Committee suggested the creation

of an advisory, council on.the lines of Le Comite Consulatif d'hygiene

publique France which would represent all the Departments of State con•

cerned with matters relating to public health. This, the Committee

stated:

Would be calculated to supply the knowledge and stimulus which are necessary in order to give the Public Health side of the Board's administration.a prominence which the multiplicity of the other functions may have tended to obscure, and to attract to its work that measure of public interest which has perhaps been lacking hitherto.187 143

Implicit in the recommendations of the Committee were moves to• wards the centralization of power over health matters. For example, the Committee was in favour of having full-time Medical Officers of

Health employed in urban areas over a.certain size who could not be dis• missed (except in cases of misconduct) without the approval of the Local

188

Government Board. Proposal Number 10 indicated the desire for strengthening the chain, of command so that County Councils, through an appointed Medical Officer of Health, could be empowered, after reference to the Local Government Board, to act in matters of local, administration (except municipal boroughs) concerning Housing and Public Health Acts 189 where necessary. The intention of the Committee as to where the power should lie was made explicit by recommendation Number 11: The Local Sanitary Authority should be required to furnish the Local Government Board, through the County authority, reports according to certain requirements, which show accurately what was being done, or left undone, in matters of sanitation and administration generally, and would thus form a basis of comparison between different districts. Armed with this information it should be the duty of the Central Authority to watch closely local administration, and to endeavour constantly to level up backward districts to the standard attained in the best administered areas.1^0

The conclusions of the Report also included proposals for state intervention in addition to the provisions for school children. For example, proposal Number 5 stated:

It may be necessary, in order to complete the work of clearing crowded slums, for the State acting in conjunction with the Local Authority, to take charge of the lives of those who, from whatever cause, are incapable of independent existence up to the standard of decency which it imposes. In the last resort, this might take the form of labour colonies on the lines of the Salvation Army-colony at Had-leigh, with powers, however, of compulsory detention. 144

The children of persons so treated might be lodged temporarily in public nurseries or boarded out . . . .x9±

The Committee concluded that the removal of all the evils noted could not take place without what they called "some great scheme of 192 social education." The Committee believed that such a scheme should develop new methods to inform the public about the latest techniques of home management and child rearing. They proposed that girls should re• ceive instruction at school in the proper selection and preparation of

193 food, and that:school children generally should be trained in the 194 laws of health and specifically the care of teeth. A number of schemes which would provide women with the latest information on family hygiene, infant feeding and home management were considered. The Committee sug• gested that mothers' meetings and lectures were ideal places for dissemi• nating knowledge on food selection and preparation, and especially infant 195 feeding and management. They also advocated the formation of health societies on the lines of those already established at Manchester and 196

Salford for the whole country. In addition, the Committee intended that midwives should play an important role in educating expectant mothers now that the State could be sure standards of professional pro- 197 ficiency had been established.

Among the final words of this, the most far-sighted report on public health and best blue-print for social action,to date, was a clear warning of how all would be of no avail unless another overriding change took place. The seven committee members, backed up by the evidence of some of the most influential social reformers, the leaders of the medical 145 profession, and a whole bevy of assorted civil servants and well-meaning individuals, maintained:

In the carrying out of their recommendations for the rectification of acknowledged evils, the Committee do not rely upon any large measure of legislative assistance; the law may with advantage be altered and elaborated in certain respects, but the pathway to improvement lies in another direction. Complacent optimism and administrative indifference must be attacked and overcome, and a large-hearted sentiment of public interest take over the place of timorous counsels and sectional prejudice.198

Social change was now not only demanded but was there for the asking providing the Committee's last recommendation could be made effective. At the root of the problem lay bad health, inadequate health administration, poor nutrition, and insufficient training in the laws of health. The full circle of poverty showing the relationship between all its causes and effects was now revealed for all who cared to see.

The work of Booth and Rowntree had shown that low and irregular wages, and total unemployment led directly to an insufficient diet and bad and overcrowded living conditions. These manifestations of poverty, the

Report proved conclusively, caused bad health. Sickness, disease, high infant mortality, premature death of breadwinners, and at best, physical inefficiency, in turn, led to poverty. The picture was now broad enough so that the role of alcoholism, betting, crime, food adulteration, in• dustrial pollution and vagrancy could be seen in their true light. To break this vicious circle legislation of wide compass, public education in the laws of health and household management, higher and more regular wages, and above all, the introduction of full social protection for children were needed. 146

FOOTNOTES

1 See A. F. Havighurst, Twentieth Century Britain (New York, 1966), p. 11. 2 First indications that something was wrong came in October of 1899. See A. White, "The Cult of Infirmity," National Review, 34 (October 1899), 236-45. White continued to make clear the relationship between efficiency and empire in a series of articles for The Daily Chronicle, Harpers, The Sunday Sun, and The Westminster Gazette. 3 Sir R. Ensor, England 1870-1914 (London, 1966), p. 253. 4 . See Karl Pearson, National Life from the Standpoint of Science (London, 1905), p. 11. This was originally delivered as a lecture to the Literary and Philosophical Society in Newcastle on 19 November 1900. ^ See L. S. Amery (ed.), The Times History of the War in South Africa, 1899-1900, 1 (London, 1900), 11.

6 This campaign continued in the August, September, October, and November issues. 7 A society of the same name had been formed after the Crimean war as an outcry against aristocratic inefficiency and selfishness. g See J. Knowles, "The Lessons of War," Nineteenth Century, 48 (July 1900), 1. Knowles1 organization also demanded public accounta• bility of all officials, payments by results, and promotion by merit and efficiency. 9 See G. B. Shaw (ed.), Fabianism and Empire (London, 1900), p. 98. For a brief discussion of the purpose of this document and the con• tribution of the editor, see E. R. Pease, The History of the Fabian Society (New York, 1926), pp. 133-38. 10 See C. F. G. Masterman, "The Wail of the Social Reformer," Commonwealth (November 1900). An extract of this article is cited in Lucy Masterman, C. F. G. Masterman, A Biography (London, 1968), p. 37.

X± Havighurst, p. 12, has noted that the Daily Express ran an editorial entitled "The Final Chapter" and that the parliamentary elec• tions were dominated by that assumption. 12 Ensor, p. 267, states that the October election was Chamber• lain's work'. 13 See Masterman, p. 37. 147

14 According to G. Monger, The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy 1900-1907 (London, 1963), p. 1, Britain had no need for allies during the long Victorian peace "and isolation, which had at first been partially imposed upon her by events, was soon.accepted as a sign of her strength and self-sufficiency. Glorified.as 'Splendid Isolation' it be• came the guiding principle of her policy." This form of isolation was in contrast to that experienced by the British at the turn of the century. The Franco-Russian. Alliance of 1894 with its consequent challenge to the British Mediterranean fleet, the increasing Russian influence in Persia, and the threat to India instigated by the building of a railway through Turkestan, the imminent dissolution of the Chinese Empire, all these and more made isolation no longer desirable. See Havighurst, p. 11 for the reaction of Europeans to the British during the summer of 1900.

15 According to Havighurst, p. 14, an issue of the Economist of that year stated: "economic superiority of the United States to England is ultimately as certain as the next eclipse." Likewise, Havighurst notes that while the last quarter of the nineteenth century had repre• sented "phenomenal" growth for the U.S. and German key industries, British steel and.cotton industries had experienced declines in profits and prices.

16 See the Spectator of 16 August 1902. It noted not only that there was a "universal cry for efficiency in all departments of society, in all aspects of life," but that it came from the most unexpected quarters: the drawing rooms, the smoking rooms, the hustings, the news• papers, the pulpit, and the street, etc. At one time or another L. S. Amery, R. B. Haldane, Professor Hewins, Alfred Milner, Robert Morant, Lord Rosebery, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and H. G. Wells were all lead• ing advocates of national efficiency. Such a list proves, without doubt, the catholic appeal of the programme. 17 G. R. Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Political thought,.1899-1914 (Oxford, 1971), dis• cusses the subject very briefly between pages 31 and 33. 18 See R. D. Altick, Victorian People and Ideas (New York, 1973), 135. 19 See Elie Halevy, England in 1815 (London, 1924), p. 509. 20 In so much as Benthamism demanded a science of politics, social reform and efficient, centralized political institutions it often came into opposition with the "let-alone" principle of the Manchester School when the latter was applied to the social realm. 21 John. Stuart Mill first read Wordsworth in 1828. This led him to Coleridge, and then to Goethe and the Germans. See Albert Levi, The Six Great Humanistic Essays of John Stuart Mill (New York, '1963), p. ix. 148

22 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Oskar Piest (New York, 1957), p. 12. Piest points out that Utilitarianism was written primarily to defend the "greatest happiness principle" against an ever-rising tide of criticism; see page vii. 23 See John Stuart Mill, The Principles of Political Economy, ed. Donald Winch (London, 1970), p. 34. Mill admitted this in 1862. 24 See ibid., book 2, chap. 1, p. 350. 25 See Charles Booth, "The Inhabitants of Tower Hamlets, Their Condition and Occupations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 50 (1887), 326-91, and "The Condition and Occupations of the People of East London and Hackney," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 51 (1888), 276-331. These were later expanded into Life and Labour of the People in London which was published in seventeen volumes. 26 The first limited edition of 1,250 copies sold out on the day of issue. See Sir Llewelyn Woodward, The Age of Reform (Oxford, 1962) , p. 574. 27 According to Altick, p. 228, "The Origins of Species delivered the coup de grkce to whatever lingering hopes there were that the histor• icity of the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian view of man springing from it would somehow be substantiated by science." 28 In 1864 T. H. Huxley published Man's Place in Hature. In 1871 Darwin followed with The Descent of Man. W. E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind (New Haven, 1964), p. 59, has shown that such theories were particularly worrisome in the early 1870's. He notes that the most important British newspapers severely censured Darwin for "revealing his zoological (anti-Christian) conclusions to the general public at a moment when the sky of Paris was red with the incendiary flames of the Commune." 29 The theory of demoralization governed the treatment of the poor, more or less unchallenged, until the 1880's. It relied on the premise that there were deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving poor were those who were physically incapable of helping themselves and were.to be given help where necessary from local authorities. The unde• serving poor were thought to have made themselves paupers through an act of will. It was believed that society had a duty to disuade this group from relying on public charity because it was feared that they would in• fect the honest members of the working class. Drink, idleness, improvi• dence, irreligion, and premature marriage were all seen as causes of pauperism. The theory demoralization did not, in fact, deal with the problem of poverty: rather it represented a moral non-sociological explan• ation of pauperism which relied on hedonistic premises. For a discussion of the replacement of the theory of demoralization with the theory of urban degeneration see Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society (Oxford, 1971), passim. 149

30 The theory of urban degeneration recognized poverty as the key problem, and.drink, idleness, etc. as symptoms. The cause of poverty was identified as the exposure to urban conditions over an extended period, of time. Prior to 1880 the theory evidenced itself from time to time: see, for example, H. Rumsey, "On the Progressive Physical Degen• eracy of Race in the Town Populations of Great Britain," Transactions of the National. Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1971), pp. 466-72. In the 1880's and 1890's members of the medical profession sug• gested that town-born children grew up to be smaller than rural-born children: see, for example, Dr. James Cantlie, Degeneration Amongst Londoners, Parkes Museum of Hygiene Lecture (1885) and Dr. J. P. Freeman Williams, The Effect of Town Life, on General Health (1890). Such asser• tions were accepted by Charles Booth, H. Llewellyn Smith, G. B. Longstaff, and Alfred Marshall.. Employers in London also favoured country-born men because they were thought to be stronger: see Stedman Jones, passim. 31 The Royal Commission in question was the one established in 1884 by Lord Salisbury on the housing of the working classes. 32 Of the two The Bitter Cry of Outcast London was the more influ• ential. Its effects on society have been described in detail by A. S. Wohl, "The Bitter Cry. of Outcast London,". International Review of Social History, 13 (1968), 189-245. This article contains an extensive list of published responses to the housing crisis. For a supplementary list see Stedman Jones, p. 290. 33 These questions particularly worried those who were interested in the strength of the British.army. See, for example, General Sir J. L. A. Simmons, "Weakness of the Army," Nineteenth Century, 15 (1883), 529-44 and "The Critical Condition of the Army," Nineteenth Century, 14 (1883), 165-88. G. B. Longstaff blamed free trade for rural migration to the cities and its consequences, and argued that the great continental military powers set up agricultural protections to secure a supply of country-born recruits: see "Rural Depopulation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 56 (1893), 416. 34 See Lord Brabazon, "Health and Physique of Great City Popula• tions," Nineteenth Century, 10 (1881), 80-89; "Great Cities and Social Reform," Nineteenth Century, 14 (1883), 798-803; "The Decay of Bodily Strength in Towns," Nineteenth Century, 21 (1887), 673-76; and Samuel Smith, "Social Reform," Nineteenth Century, 13 (1883), 896-912. 35 See Arnold White, Problems of a Great City (London, 1886), p. 226; cited by Stedman Jones, p. 309. 36 See Stedman: Jones, ibid.; Brabazon also, advocated parks and playgrounds to let air circulate more easily in the big cities and physical training for the poor. For earlier support for physical train• ing see Edwin Chadwick's letter to the Standard reprinted in the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 24 (1876), 134, which was entitled, 150

"Physical Training and National Education," and his address to the Sani• tary Institute, "Physical Training in Schools,"'which was reprinted in part in the Journal, of the Royal Society of Arts, 27 (1879), 1.011. 37 See Lord Brabazon, "State-directed Colonization: Its Neces• sity," Nineteenth Century (November, 1884), pp. 764-87. The article shows that Brabazon was the President and Chairman of the National Asso• ciation for Promoting State-directed Emigration and Colonization. 38 See J. H. Tuke, "State Aid to Emigrants—A Reply to Lord Brabazon," Nineteenth Century, 17 (1885), 280-96. 39 See Samuel Smith,,"The Industrial Training of. Destitute Chil• dren," Contemporary Review, 47 (1885), 107-119. 40 See Arnold White, Problem of a Great City, p. 225; cited by Stedman Jones, p. 311. 41 The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Enquiry into the Condi• tion of the Abject Poor was first published in October of 1883. Though there is some argument over the pamphlet's authorship the Reverend Andrew Mearns published "Outcast London," in the Contemporary Review, 45 (December 1883), 924-33. Spencer's first article was published in Feb• ruary of 1884; the final one in July. Together these articles were later published as The Man Versus the State in 1884. 42 This was Spencer's term. He first used it in 1852: see Altick, p. 232. 43 Bernard.Semmel, .Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social- Imperial Thought, 1895-1914 (London, 1960), pp.. 30-31, suggests that Spencer was by no means the first to adopt "internal social-Darwinism." "The Cobdenite Radicals—including John Stuart Mill, Darwin,. Spencer, Huxley and John Bright—: ... . took for granted the necessity of the factory system and the .internal economic struggle but protested the brutal suppression of Jamaican coloured men by the British Governor Eyre." 44 For example, see Thomas Carlyle, "Essays on the Nigger Ques• tion" (1849). Semmel,vp. 30, suggests that this "racist tract" "can be regarded as 'premature' external social-Darwinism, as can his position in the celebrated Eyre case during the period between 1865 and 1868." 45 For a discussion of Kidd's participation in the development of "external" social-Darwinism see, Semmel, pp. 29-35. Kidd worked at the Inland Revenue until the publication of Social Evolution in 1894. There• after he devoted himself to writing. Social Evolution contained all of Kidd's important contributions to social theory. 46 Included in this quality were: reverence, great mental energy, resolution, enterprise, powers of prolonged and concentrated application, 151 and a sense of simple-minded and single-minded devotion to the concep• tion of duty. 47 See Semmel, pp. 35-39, for a discussion of Pearson's particu• lar brand of socialism. 48 See "Socialism and Natural Selection." This was published in July of 1894. It was reprinted-in Karl Pearson, The Chances of Death and Other Studies in Evolution, 1 (London, 1897), 103-39. 49 Ibid., p. 113. 50 Ibid., p. 111. 51 See Elie Halevy, A History of the English People, 4 (London, 1951), 316. 52 M. A. Crowther, Church Embattled: Religious Controversy in Mid-Victorian England (Newton Abbot, 1970), p. 35, stresses that the historical and scientific criticism of the Bible preceded the mid-century debate, generated by Origin of Species, and that Essays and Reviews, pub• lished one year after Darwin's. book did not rely on it to substantiate its claims. 53 See ibid., p. 29-30. 54 Crowther has suggested that the movement may be broken down into two generations (of intellectual activity rather than age). The first included: Thomas Arnold, J. C. and A. W. Hare, Cannop Thirwell, F. D. Maurice, Richard Whatley, Baden Powell, and Charles Kingsley. The second generation whose work reached fruition in 1855 included the authors of Essays and Reviews. Jowett, Roland Williams, Frederick Temple, Mark Pattison, Henry Bristow Wilson, C. W. Goodwin, Arthur Stanley, and Henry Milman. 55 See G. Faber, Jowett: A Portrait with a Background (London, 1957), p. 244. 56 See R. T. Shannon, "John Robert Seeley and the Idea of a National Church: A Study in Churchmanship, Historiography, and Politics," in R. Robson, ed., Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain: Essays in Honour of George Kitson Clark (London, 1967), p. 237. 57 Ibid., p. 238. 58 M. Arnold, Culture and Anarchy,: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism, ed. J. Dover Wilson (Cambridge, 1969), p. 75. 59 Ibid., pp. 74-76. 152

See M. Arnold, Higher Schools and Universities in Germany (London, 1968) , p. 217. An example of the British distrust of science training can be seen in the address of John Wigham Richardson to the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders of 13 October 1890, which has been reprinted in W. H. B. Court, British Economic His• tory, 1870-1914: Commentary and Documents (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 171-72. Not all Britons thought like Richardson. Karl Pearson believed that "modern science,.as training the mind to an exact and impartial analysis of the facts, is an education specially, fitted to promote sound citizen• ship." See Frederick Coppleston, A History of Philosophy, 8 (Garden City, 1967), 136 and 138. 61 See J. Roach, "Liberalism and the Victorian Intelligentsia," Cambridge Historical Journal, 13 (1957), 58-81. 62 From 1848 until at least the 1880's the fear of revolution was a constant undercurrent.. In 1866, 1870 and 1886-87 it broke through to the surface. See, for example, Stedman Jones' treatment of the Trafalgar Square riots in Outcast London, p. 291. 63 J. F. Stephen, for example, considered that India represented "the best corrective against the fundamental fallacies of Liberalism" and had "the only government under English control worth caring about." See letters 15 March 1878 and 10 May 1876 from Stephen to the Earl of Lytton, Viceroy of India: cited by Roach, p. 64. 64 See H. J. Laski, "The .Leaders of Collectivist Thought," in Jdeas and Beliefs of the Victorians (London, 1949), p. 422. 65 See Coppleston, pp. 188-89. 66 See M. Richter, The Philosophy of Conscience: T. H. Green and His Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), p. 91. 67 Many of those who had imbibed of Green's idealist philosophy became residents of the university settlements. In January 1885 the Reverend Samuel Barnett founded Toynbee Hall in memory of Jowett and Green's younger colleague., Arnold Toynbee. Barnett intended Toynbee Hall to fulfil three basic needs: to provide a base for the scientific anal• ysis of urban problems, to give working men a wider life through educa• tion, and to offer the future rulers of Britain an opportunity to understand first-hand the problems.of the urban poor. In all three Barnett was successful. Two men who played prominent parts in the development of legislation to protect the health of school children had contacts with Toynbee Hall. Robert Morant was a resident: Sir John E. Gorst was a frequent visitor. See J. A. R. Pimlott, Toynbee Hall.-• Fifty Years of Social Progress, 1884-1934 (London, 1935). 68 See S. G. Checkland, "Growth and Progress: The Nineteenth Century View of Britain,"Economic History Review, n.s. 12 (1959-60), 59. 153

69 See S. Mencher, Poor Law to Poverty Programme (Pittsburgh, 1967), p. 181. 70 See Mark Abrams., Social Surveys and Social Action (London, 1951), pp. 31-32. 71 Ibid.

72 See H. M. Lynd, England in the 1880's (London, 1945), p. 176.

73 See A. D. Lindsay, "T. H. Green and the Idealists" in P. J. C. Hearnshaw, ed., The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative Thinkers of the Victorian Age (London, 1933), p. 152. 74 Richter, pp. 13, 294, and 361, has shown that a stream of young men 'came down' from Oxford to spend their lives establishing set• tlement houses, working in adult education, reorganizing charities, improving the school system and amending the Poor Law. Descendents of the Idealist School were to be. found on the left of the Liberal Party, in the Fabian, London Ethical and Charity Organization Societies, the Workers' Education Association, the Christian Social Union, and in pol• itics and government. Laski, p. 420, has shown the influence of the Idealist School on Asquith to have been considerable. The Liberal Imperialist R. B. Haldane studied under Caird at Edinburgh. Though the influence of the Idealist.School was first felt about the time Asquith became a Member of Parliament (1886), the major impact occurred in the first few years of the twentieth century. M. Richter, "T. H. Green and his Audience: Liberalism as a Surrogate Faith," Review of Politics, 18 (1956), 444, has shown that in the 1906 General Election, thirty-one Balliol graduates were elected to the House of Commons. Twenty-three of these were Liberals:.four were of Cabinet rank. Mrs. Humphrey Ward's novel, Robert Elesmere (1888) which depicted the activities of a Pro• fessor Grey, a thinly disguised Green, clearly illustrates the wide appeal of the message of the Idealist School (see Mrs. Humphrey Ward, A Writer's Recollections [London, 1918], p. 252). Robert Morant who attended New College, another bastion of idealism, is known to have been influenced by the book: see Bernard Allen, Sir Robert Morant, A Great Public Servant (London, 1934). 75 Checkland, p. 59. 76 See Sir N. Lockyer, Education and National Progress (London, 1906), pp. 180-90. 77 Playfair, owed his eminence to his teaching position and the fact that he had experience in international industrial exhibitions, e.g., the Great Exhibition of 1851. 78 See School Inquiry.Commission: Report Relative to Technical Education 1867 (1898), xxvi, pp. 6-7: reprinted in Court, pp. 167-69. 154

The letter was described by the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction in 1884 as: "the first impulse to an inquiry into the subject of tech• nical instruction." 79 Quoted by R. E. Waterhouse, The Birmingham and Midland Insti• tute, 1854-1954 (1954), p. 76; reprinted in Court, p. 163. 80 See the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Industry and Trade (1886), C 4893, xxiii, paras., 73-76: reprinted in Court, pp. 205-7. 81 See R. J. S. Hoffman, Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914 (Philadelphia, 1933). 82 See M...E. and K. R. Swan, Sir Joseph Wilson Swan FRS: A Memoir (1929), p. 154: reprinted in Court, p. 172. 8 3 A number of British industrialists adopted the policy of attempting to change the physical environment faced by their workers. See Budget Meakin., Model Factories and Villages (London, 1905) , or more recently, W. Ashworth, "British Industrial Villages in the Nineteenth Century," Economic History Review, n.s. 3 (1950), 378-87. Of these employers the Quaker chocolate manufacturers are of particular interest. Professor Ashley, concluding for the case of Cadbury's remarked: "the supreme principle has been the belief that business efficiency and the welfare of the employees are but different sides of the same problem." See his Preface to E. Cadbury, Experiments in Industrial Organization (London, 1912), p. xvii. It is clear from remarks made by Cadbury that this principle had been established well before the end of the century. 84 Shannon, p. 263. 85 Ibid., p. 261. 86 Ibid., pp. 247-55. Shannon states: "in Stein Seeley provides Englishmen with an example of the way in which a foreign country, de• feated and demoralized, won its way back to greatness by means of a deliberate policy of discipline, education, 'Masculine grasp of reality,' harsh but salutary social and political reconstruction, all within a clearly recognizable framework of a national idea and an idealized state." Shannon:further suggests that Stein represents "a struggle between a moral conception of the state—Stein's Prussia—and an immoral conception —the Napoleonic Empire, embodiment of the universal monarchy principle." In "The Church as a Teacher of Morality," in Essays in Church Policy (1868), Seeley argued.that as morality must be political, it must be national, and advocated not only that the National Church had a duty to teach morality, but that such teaching should stem from national history, not traditional and irrelevant sources like the Old Testament.

87 This was perhaps the first articulation of the "heartland 155 theory" of geopolitics which was later to be developed by John Halford Mackinder in The Geographical Pivot of History (1904) and Britain and the British Seas (1902). 88 See J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England (Chicago, 1971), p. 237. The book stemmed from two sets of lectures, delivered between the autumn of 1881 and the spring of 1882. First published as a book in 1883 it sold 80,000 copies in two years. According to John Gross's "Introduction," p. xii, the political climate of the following decade did nothing to detract from its appearl. 89 See Shannon, p. 259. 90 Ibid., p. 257. 91 See John Gross, "Introduction" to Seeley, p. xvi. 92 See Seeley, p. 227. 93 See The Times (17 November 1900). 94 In all fairness.it must be said that there were moves to make Rosebery take over the Liberal leadership well before the Glasgow speech. Beatrice Webb, for example, records in her diary a pro-Rosebery 'anti- little England' party at R. B. Haldane's on 16 March 1900. See Our Partnership (London, 1948), p. 198. However, the point at issue here is not the attempt'to force Rosebery's return to the leadership of the Liberal Party, but rather the attempt to form a new party altogether— one which would have a catholic appeal. 95 ' According to Havighurst, p. 24, 2,100,000 voted for the Oppo• sition. 96 Such dissatisfaction stemmed largely from Salisbury's failure to strengthen the Cabinet and;to curb the powers of the Treasury. 97 Ensor, p. 346, has noted that the camps were "grossly mis• managed" and that diseases were rife. In the period between January 1901 and February 1902, 20,177 inmates died out of a maximum population of 117,871. 98 H. Pelling, Modern Britain, 1885-1955 (London, 1969), p. 38, has stated that the formation of the new party hardly created a stir because of these events. 99 Only two LRC candidates, Keir Hardie and Richard Bell, were elected in the 1900 election. H. Pelling, The Origins of the Labour Party 1880-1900. (London, 1966), pp. 212-13, has noted: "It was not sur• prising that the LRC was unable to organize the labour vote adequately 156 at such an early stage of its career. There were as yet no central funds to finance contests, and the Committee could do no more than endorse the candidates, proposed by its constituent bodies. Out of a total LRC expenditure in its first year of less than fi200, only f33 was spent di• rectly on. the General Election." Nevertheless, the LRC managed to run fifteen candidates.

100 See Webb, p. 218. She noted that Haldane visited her on 8. .. July and pleaded for Sidney to come to a dinner in honour of Asquith at the Hotel Cecil on 19 July, saying "we are fighting for our lives."

101 On the same day as Haldane visited the Webbs they received a letter from G. B. Shaw suggesting that they went along with Rosebery as he believed it provided the best opportunity for "moulding a home policy." 102 Webb, naturally enough, was particularly successful in ap• pealing to those on the left. On 8 November 1901, Sidney Webb delivered a lecture to the Fabian Society. As can be seen from the reprint of the lecture, "Twentieth Century Politics: A Policy of National Efficiency," Fabian Tract, p. 108, much of the content of this lecture had appeared in his article for Nineteenth Century. 103 Sidney Webb, "Lord Rosebery's Escape from Houndsditch," Nineteenth Century and After, 50 (September 1901), p. 368. 104 Ibid., pp. 366-68. Ibid., p. 355.

106 Ibid., p. 369. 107 See B. B. Gilbert, p. 77. For a full explanation of the "national minimum" see S. and B..Webb, Industrial Democracy (London, 1898) . 108 Webb, "Lord. Rosebery's Escape . . .," p. 355. 109 Ibid., p. 381. 110 Ibid., p. 377. 111 Ibid., pp. 377-81. 112 Ibid., p. 381. 113 Ibid., pp. 384-85. 114 Ibid., p. 384. 115 See A. White, Efficiency and Empire (London, 1901), pp. 102-3. 157

116 White, p. 103. 117 See B. S. Rowntree, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (London, 1901), pp. 216-21. 118 See B. B. Gilbert, "Health and Politics: The Physical Deteri• oration Report," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 39 (1955), 145. 119 See W. T. Steed, "How the Other Half Lives: The Way We Under• mine Our National Efficiency," Review of Reviews, 24 (December 1901), 642-45. 120 See 'Miles' "Where to Get Men," Contemporary Review, 81 (January 1902), 78-79. The January issue also contained an article by G. F. G. Masterman.entitled, "The Social Abyss," which was a review of Rowntree's recent book. This. may. have added wood to the fire. 121 Ibid., p. 80. 122 Ibid., p. 81. 123 Ibid. 124 See J. M.. Mackintosh, Trends of Opinion About Public Health, 1901-1951 (London, 1953), p. 2. 125 See Major-General Sir J. F. Maurice, "National Health: A Soldier's Study," Contemporary- Review, 83 (January 1903), 41-56. This article was based on a lecture: given to the Civic Society of Glasgow. The lecture stemmed from the personal observations of the author and the then Inspector General of Recruiting: see the Lancet, ii (6 August 1904), 391. The influence of Booth and Rowntree and other social reformers on Maurice was obviously considerable. It is interesting to note how he ties their work together .in his request for government investigation. For example, of Mayhew's articles in the Morning Chronicle Maurice re• marks: "Did not approach the work of Booth . . . But even so they had this remarkable result, that by a sequence not difficult to trace they revolutionised the whole conditions of our industrial life. They pro• duced probably.comparatively little effect upon the minds of the many, but they did what was much more important, they produced a most intense effect upon the minds of the few. They stimulated my father and his friends and that very important personage in the evolution of our social life, now I suppose wholly forgotten, Mr. Slaney . . . [he] succeeded in getting a searching Parliamentary Inquiry . . . ." G.-F.. Shee, "The Deterioration in National Physique," Nine• teenth Century and After, 53 (May 1903), 797-804. 127 See The Times, 18 and 21 November; 3, 14, 16, 24, 26, 28, and 30 December 1901. 158

128 See for example: 'Centurion,' "Shall We Get a Serious Army?" National Review, 37 (March 1901), 178-87; 'The Author of "Drifting,"' "The Economic Decay of Great Britain," Contemporary Review, 79 (May 1901), 609-38; idem, "Economic Decay of Great Britain 2,"Contemporary Review, 79 (June 1901), 783-812; idem, "Economic Decay of Great Britain 3," Con• temporary Review, 80 (August 1901), 264-83; E. E. Williams, "Made in Germany—Five Years After," National Review, 38 (September 1901) , 130-44; Lt. General S. Warren, "Some Lessons from the South African War," National Review, 38 (October 1901), 181-96; idem, "Some Further Lessons from the War," National Review, 38 (November 1901), 383-401; H. R. White, "The Problem of Tuberculosis," Westminster Review, 158 (November 1901), 545-52; 'Yolet Capel,' "England's Peril," Westminster Review, 157 (Feb• ruary 1902), 163-70; idem, "Personnel for Our Army," Westminster Review, 157 (March 1902), 266-70; H. Bell, "The Crisis in British Industry," National Review, 39 (April 1902), 295-304; W. R. Lawson, "Our Company Directors," National Review, 40 (July 1902), 118-28; Lord Newton, "A Radical's Plea for Conscription," National Review, 37 (June 1901), 533-37. B. B. Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, p. 82, n. 48, has suggested that Leo Maxse, the owner-editor of the right- wing National Review made National Efficiency something of a crusade. 129 See for example: G. G. Coulton, Public Schools and Public Needs (London, 1901), and. L. Magnus, ed., National Education: A Symposium (London, 1901). 130 See especially Alfred Marshall's "Memorandum on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade" which was written in August of 1903 and later published.as a White Paper (321) in 1908. The section entitled "Changes Affecting England's Industrial Leadership (59-70)" contains a very pertinent paragraph.: "Many of the sons of manufacturers [have been] content to follow mechanically the load given by their fathers. They have,worked shorter hours, and they have exerted themselves less to ob• tain practical ideas than their fathers had done, and thus a part of England's leadership was destroyed rapidly. In the 'nineties it became clear that in the future Englishmen must take business as seriously as their grandfathers had done, and as their American and German rivals were doing: that their training for business must be methodical, like that of their new rivals, and not merely practical, on lines that had sufficed for the simpler world.of two generations ago: and lastly that the time has passed at which they could afford merely to teach foreigners and not learn from in return." 131 See R. Balmforth, "Darwinism and Empire," Westminster Review, 158 (July 1902), 1-13. This article .is particularly interesting because it shows the use and popularity of such ideas as "natural selection" and the "survival of the fittest" in the discussion of empire at the begin• ning of the twentieth century. See also: Robert Blatchford, Britain for the British (London 1902); the sources by A. White cited in note 2; Sidney Webb, "Physical Degeneracy or Race Suicide," The Times (11 and 16 159

October 1906) and the "Decline of the Birthrate," Fabian Tract, 131 (1907); G. B. Shaw, Man and Superman (London, 1903); K. Pearson, "National Deterioration," a letter to The Times (25 August 1905); and H. G. Wells, The New Machiavelli (London, 1911). It should be noted as L. A. Farrall has done in "The Origins of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865-1925" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1965), p. 303, that Pearson was among the many who lectured on the significance of the British defeats in the South African war. Among the printed sources which discuss Pearson's contribution is Semmel, pp. 35-52. It should also be noted that the relationship between physical deterioration, race, and the state of British cities was a familiar one to eugenicists. J. E. Morgan, The Danger of Deterioration of Race from too Rapid Increase of Great Cities (1866) and J. H. Bridges, "Influence of Civilization on Health," Fort• nightly Review (August 1869),. pp. 140-61, provided support for W. R. Gregg's "On the Failure of 'Natural Selection' in the Case of Man," Fraser's Magazine (September 1868), which tried to explain the deteri• oration of health and physique which was thought to be taking place among the English population. S. A. K. Strahan's Marriage and Disease: A Study of Hereditary and the.More Important Family Degenerations (London, 1892) provided figures showing increasing rates of insanity, mental illness, tuberculosis, and cancer,, and stated that it was virtually impossible to find a family which had survived for three or more generations in London. Also Haycraft's Darwinism and Race Progress (London, 1895), included a chapter on- the "Causes and Sign of Physical Deterioration." See Farrall, pp. 15-52. 132 By 1905 the Boys' Brigade was twenty-one years old. In that year General Baden-Powell took an interest in the movement. In the following year he wrote. Scouting for Boys which led to the first scout troops in 1907. 133 This was reported in The Times on the following day, 6 Decem• ber 1901. 134 There are many, descriptions of the Co-Efficients. Among the participants see: L. S. Amery, My Political Life (London, 1953); W. A. Hewins, The Apologia of an Imperialist (London, 1929); Bertrand Russell, Portraits from Memory and Other Essays (London, 1956). H. G. Wells de• scribed the Co-Efficients in his novel The New Machiavelli. (London, 1911) as the Pentegram Circle. Among the more recent studies of the period see Semmel, Imperialism and Social Reform. Most of the participants are well known and need no introduction. Of the less familiar W. A. S. Hewins was the first director of the London School of Economics;. W. Pember Reeves was the Agent General in London for the New Zealand Government; L. S. Amery was a graduate of Balliol, a Fabian socialist in his youth and later a staunch Chamberlain Unionist, who became a Times war correspondent; Sir Clinton Dawkins was also a graduate of Balliol, a man with India Office experience, and a partner of the financial house of J. S. Morgan; J. A. Garvin was with the 160

Observer and W. F. Monypenny was with The Times; Juliet Corbett was a naval historian; F. S. Oliver was the biographer of Alexander Hamilton; Josiah Wedgewood was an MP of long standing and a naval architect. 135 See, for example, Chesterfield speech of 16 December 1901. 136 Searle, p. 42, has suggested: "At once leader writers and politicians, with Rosebery to the fore, took these verses as their text, and for many months no after-dinner speech was complete without some reference to the dangers of substituting sport for more 'serious' pur• suits ." 137 One might also add Chamberlain's Birmingham speech of 15 May 1903 as a contributing factor. By attacking Free Trade and advocating Imperial Preference he made .inevitable a split in the precarious alliance between Fabian socialists, Unionists, and Liberal Imperialists. 138 The crucial section of Selbourne's memorandum went: "The more the composition;of the new German fleet is examined the clearer it becomes that it is designed for a possible conflict with the British fleet." See A. J. Marder, From.Dreadnaught to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904-1919, 1 (London, 1961), 107. 139 For a discussion,of this point see Monger, p. 82. 140 See Searle, p. 143. 141 See Arthur Shadwell, Industrial Efficiency: A Comparative Study of Industrial Life in England, Germany and America . (London, 1906). 142 See T. C. Horsfall,. The Example of Germany.: The Improvement of the Dwellings, and Surroundings of the People (Manchester, 1904), pp. 161-62. 143 See W. T. Steed,.ed., Coming Men on Coming Questions (London, 1905), p. 314. 144 See J. L. Bashford, "The German Army System,and How it Works," Nineteenth Century and After, 56 (October, 1904), 620. 145 Sir Henry Birehenough, "Compulsory Education and Compulsory Military Training," Nineteenth Century and After, 56 (July, 1904), 22. 146

Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (7 March 1902), col. 789.

147 Ibid., col. 790. Report:of the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scot• land) , Cd. 1507 (1903), vol. 1, p. 30, para. 162. 161

149 Report . . . on Physical Training . . ., Minutes of Evidence, Cd 1508, vol. 2, Q. 760, evidence of J. E. Legge. 150 Ibid., Q. 8140. 151 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 30, para. 165ff. 152 Ibid., para. 210. 153 See "The Report of the Privy Council upon Physical Deteriora• tion ," The Lancet, ii (6 August 1904), 391. According to The Lancet the memorandum was written in April and published as a Parliamentary Paper on 16 July 1903.

154 TV, Ibid. 155 Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (6 July 1903), col. 1325. 156 Ibid., cols. 1330, 1331, 1332-34, 1327, and 1324. 157 Ibid.,,cols. 1350-51. 158 See Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, Minutes of Evidence, Cd. 2210 (1904). 159 See the British Medical Journal, ii (25 July 1903), 207-8. Prior to the: Royal Colleges being asked an opinion and the consequent promise of the Duke of Devonshire to provide a 'searching inquiry,' the British Medical Journal had sat on the fence. By comparison The Lancet had challenged General Maurice's assertions. 160 According to The Lancet, ii (6 August 1904), 391, the Duke of Devonshire had suggested that a Royal Commission was the best route to take in his July speech to the House of Lords. 161 Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, p. 91, n. 70, states that the Scottish Report received "virtually no attention until the interdepartmental committee made its report."

162 Questions relating to the conditions of the working classes were areas which came under the jurisdiction of the Home Office and the Local Government Board. The Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee, Almeric Fitzroy, Memoirs, 1 (London, 1925), 259, has shown that both of these Departments of State were against any investigation. It is perhaps interesting to note that the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scot• land) was both an entirely Scottish affair, though it did rely to a cer• tain degree on English, experts and information, and an educational one. 163 The Secretary of the Treasury, George Murray, praised the Committee for having done the work of a Royal Commission at one tenth of 162 the cost: see Fitzroy, p. 214. The terms of reference were changed from: "To make a preliminary Inquiry into the allegations concerning the deter• ioration of certain classes of the population as shown by the large percentage of rejections for physical causes of recruits for the army and by other evidence, especially the report of the Commission on Physical Training; and to consider in what manner the medical profession can best be consulted on the subject with a view to the appointment of the Royal Commission and the terms of reference to such a commission if appointed"; to "(i) to determine with such aid of such counsel as the medical pro• fession are able to give the steps that should be taken to furnish the Government and the nation at large with periodical data for an accurate comparative estimate of the health and physique of the people; (ii) to indicate generally the causes of such .physical deterioration as does exist in certain classes; and (iii) to point out the means by which it can most effectively be diminished." The Committee was comprised of Almeric Fitzroy, Col. G. M. Fox (former head of the Army Gymnastic School), H. M. Lindsell (Assistant Secretary to the Board of Education), Col. G. T. Onslow (Inspector of Marine Recruiting), Dr. John Tatham (General Registry Office). No medi• cal Officer of Health was appointed. 164 The Report and Appendix.were presented to Parliament on 21 July 1904 (Cd. 2175 and 2210 respectively). The influence of Charles Booth, B. S. Rowntree, and a man who will figure later in the text, Sir John E. Gorst, MP, can, be seen by the fact that they were.included among the sixty-eight witnesses selected. 165 It should be pointed out that there had been some anthro• pometric studies done in the nineteenth century and that these had been taken into consideration,, i.e., the survey conducted by Dr. Bridges and Dr. Homes in 1873, and the British Association's study of 1878-83. See Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration (Cd. 2175) (1904), paras. 13-14. 166 Ibid., para. 94. 167 Ibid., para 100. 168 Ibid., para. 107: Manchester particularly was cited. 169 Ibid., paras. 160 and 173. 170 Ibid., para. 289. "With the exception of Mr. Edward Rees, whose panacea was fresh air, all the witnesses concurred in claiming the first place for food. 'Food,' says Dr. Eicholz, is the point about which turns the whole problem of degeneracy. There is first the want of food, secondly, the irregularity in the way which children get their meals, and thirdly, the non-suitability of the food when they get it . . . ."

171 IbidTK-^,. 163

172 Report on Physical Deterioration, para. 220. 173 Ibid. paras. 284, 285, and 287. 174 Ibid. para. 238. 175 Ibid. para. 255. 176 Ibid. para. 271. 177 Ibid. para. 283. 178 Ibid. paras. 284, 285, and 287. 179 Ibid. para. 286. 180 Ibid. para. 332. 181 Ibid. para. 335. 182 Ibid. Minutes of Evidence, Q. 452. 183 Ibid. Q. 9974. 184 Ibid. Q. 3992. 185 Ibid. passim. 186 Ibid. para. 243. 187 Ibid. para. no. 3. 188 Ibid. no. 9. 189 Ibid. no. 10. 190 Ibid. no. 11. Further evidence of their intention is de• picted in no. 28 which is concerned with the purity of milk. 191 Ibid. no'. 5. 192 Ibid. para. 293. 193 Ibid. Minutes, no. 20 and 20. 37. This point was also made in the periodical press. Mary Davies, for example, wrote: "The Feeding of School Children and Cookery Classes," Contemporary Review, 87 (April 1905), 564-69; and "Physical Deterioration and the Teaching of Cookery." Contemporary Review (January 1905), pp. 88-94. 194 Minutes, no. 17 and no. 52, 164

195 Minutes, no. 20 and no. 29.

Ibid., no. 33. 197

Ibid., no. 32.

198 Report, para. 426. 165

CHAPTER IV

THE ENACTMENT OF A SOCIAL BLUE-PRINT: THE MEDICAL

INSPECTION AND FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

—INITIAL STEPS IN-LONG-TERM SOCIAL PLANNING

Between the publication of the Inter-departmental Committee Re• port on Physical Deterioration and the introduction of free medical inspection for elementary school children in 1907 the British social system became a topic of major debate among the very highest levels of political life. Such debate was not without effect. During the first twelve months of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman1s Liberal Government legal precedents were established which opened the way for the 'Welfare State.'

Through the introduction of health and welfare programmes for elementary school children in 1906 and 1907 the State acknowledged its duties to• wards the protection of its citizens.

Looking back at the social reforms of these early years it is easy to suggest that legislation was not only sporadic and followed no logical progression, but was inadequate to meet the full needs of society.

Criticism of this type fails to understand the nuances and subtleties of

Edwardian politics. Moreover, it belittles the great steps that were taken. Severe problems faced those who wished to introduce social re• forms. On one side the leaders of both old-line political parties were reluctant because of financial considerations to allow Parliament to in• dulge in the discussion of such 'luxuries.' On the other side the advo• cates of social reform, besides facing Cabinet reluctance, and, if in 166 opposition, often a lack of enthusiasm among their own leadership, found themselves in a quandary. The London and York surveys which had helped to isolate the conditions and causes of poverty had also opened the door to a multitude of questions concerning the conditions of labour. Like• wise, the Royal Commission of Physical Training (Scotland) of 1903 and the Inter-departmental Committee Report on Physical Deterioration of

1904 had raised numerous questions concerning the standards of health and the quality of the diet of all age-groups among the population. As a result, the major problem facing social reformers was not how to over• come the indifference and reluctance of the nation's leadership, but the selection of a measure which would establish a precedent for others.

It is with these difficulties and subtleties in mind that any debate on the breakdown of the Poor Laws should be discussed.±

I

The first Unionist Government of the twentieth century, though 2 responsible for initiating numerous committees of investigation, largely avoided acts of social reform. Nevertheless, it was a member of the

Unionist Party, Sir John Eldon Gorst, who not only adopted the issue of child health and welfare and made it a major concern among social re• formers, but who played an. important role in the preparation of legis• lation to improve the health of school children. Despite being in his late sixties Gorst was probably in tune more with members of the young

Idealist school of politicians and civil servants who had 'come down' from Oxford over the last thirty years of the nineteenth century than 167 with members of his own Party. Gorst1s thinking on social reform had been greatly influenced by members of the Disraeli Government of 1874 to

1875. As a result he retained a large measure of respect for the lower orders. It was, in fact, his continued appreciation of the very real hazards that the more humble orders faced which alienated Gorst from members of his own Party. Bentley Gilbert has maintained:

His cynicism about the goodness of men in general and politics in particular, his small regard for such Tory ikons as the land and the Church, his lack of enthusiasm for the Boer war when it began, and most important, his continued advocacy of social reform—all these served to isolate Gorst from his Party.3

4 .

Gorst's many speeches and articles in the important periodicals of the period illustrate that he was very well-informed of the latest in social thinking. It seems likely that the source of much of his infor• mation must have been Toynbee Hall. Gorst made many visits to this 5

"research laboratory for social reformers." There he must have had numerous- conversations with his.friend, Reverend Samuel Barnett, and many young Oxford graduates6 who could have provided him with an accurate picture of working-class conditions.

Gorst's involvement in education began in. 189.5 when he was appointed Vice-President to the Privy Council. He was, therefore, at a 7 senior level when the first steps were being taken towards an official acknowledgement of the State having a specific duty to safeguard the g health and welfare of children. Gorst felt obliged to resign over the

1902 Education Act. His later attacks on the Unionist Government over their failure to do anything about child health led the future Liberal 168

Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, to remark in the House of Commons that "educationally they owed a great deal to the fact that the right 9 honourable Gentleman was unmuzzled." It was as a backbencher that Gorst first noted the important point that attempting to teach children who were too physically unfit to benefit from.,educational instruction was the "height of absurdity."10 Later in 1903 Gorst decided to leave the

Conservative Party over tariffs. He realized that while tariff reformers had given their approval to social measures which would both improve the condition of the people and enhance the national physique, they had acted as a force against legislation because they demanded that reforms should only be financed out of revenue collected through a general tariff. As a result, he felt obliged to attack those who supported tariffs. In an article, mainly for a North American audience Gorst explained how tariffs, through their consequent effects on wages and prices, could have a detrimental effect on the lives of children. Speci• fically, he argued that a policy designed to retaliate against German tariffs would be disastrous.. Relying heavily on the work of Booth and

Rowntree as well as information gleaned from the Royal Commission on

Physical Training (Scotland) and the debates concerning the standard of recruits for the British army, Gorst wrote:

To estimate the possibility of persuading the electors to adopt a scheme which involves a tax on food, the true economic condition of the people of the United Kingdom.must be taken into consideration. The mass are workers whose life is a continuous struggle to obtain for themselves and their families food, clothing and shelter. There is a certain sum of money which will purchase enough of these to secure moderate comfort. This is called "the living wage." It varies in different parts of the country, owing chiefly to variations 169

in prices, not of food or clothing, but of shelter. What proportion of the people fail to obtain this living wage cannot be certainly and accurately determined by any statistics in existence. The best conjecture seems to be that it cannot be less than thirty per cent. These people are half-starving themselves, and are bringing up half- starving families of children. The condition of disease, debility and defective sight and hearing, in the public elementary schools in poorer districts, is appalling. The research of a recent Royal Com• mission has disclosed that of the children in public elementary schools in Edinburgh, seventy per cent are suffering from disease of some kind, more than:half from defective vision, nearly half from defective hearing, and thirty per cent from starvation. The physical deterioration of recruits who offer themselves for the army is a sub• ject of increasing concern. There are grounds for at least suspecting a growing degeneracy of the population of the United Kingdom particu• larly in the great towns.H

As a result, he concluded that an increase in food prices brought about by the introduction of tariffs would raise the scale of the "minimum wage" everywhere. This would mean not only that those families on or below the poverty line would suffer even greater hardships and deprivations, but also that some of those previously above, the line who had only known the real miseries of poverty at times of crisis would now experience them on a continuous.basis.. It was his belief that "the actual experience of such a catastrophe would create a revulsion so violent as to threaten 12 the stability of society."

Concern for the health and welfare of children preceded the publi• cation of the Inter-departmental Committee Report on Physical Deteriora• tion. On 20. April 1904, Gorst embarrassed the Government by seconding a 13 motion by Claude Hay.for feeding compulsorily educated children. Immed• iately after the publication of the Report, and as soon as the subject could feasibly be broached in Parliament, Gorst was on his feet again 14 recommending that local authorities be given the power to feed. Such 170 attacks drew many supporters, especially from the Labour benches. Will

Crooks, another man equally dissatisfied with the Government's lack of action, pointed out sarcastically:

Dealing with the question of underfed children attending schools the honourable Member urged that something should be done in this matter at once, and that it should not be put off to next year. The ques• tion has been discussed for years, and it would be postponed again and passed on to the honourable Gentleman's successor if the policy which had been pursued in the past were continued,15

Nevertheless, the matter was put off until the following year. When the

King's speech came to be read, no mention was made of any intention to feed needy school children. What was more, the Unionist Government appeared to have no plans for any legislation stemming from the Report.

In fact, it is known that Gorst's successor at the Board of Education,

William Anson, a man who was also in favour of reform, had been told by

A. J. Balfour, as early as May of 1904, that he could be "as sympathetic 16 as he liked but there would.be no increase in the rates."

A clearer indication of the Government's desire to do nothing may be gleaned from Cabinet Minutes. On 10 February 1905, only a few days before Parliament was due to .open, the President of the Board of

Education, the Marquis of Londonderry, suggested to the Cabinet that the

Government should do nothing about the Physical Deterioration Report.

The method of obstruction he suggested was the old device of setting up a second committee to investigate the findings of the first. This he believed,, would be sufficient to avoid any nasty questions over the king's speech by giving the appearance that something was being done. In this way any action could be postponed until new findings were available, 171 and providing the new committee approached the subject with preconceived conclusions, as he recommended they should,, the whole matter might be dropped.17

The Government followed Londonderry's advice. In March of 1905 the Inter-departmental Committee on the Medical Inspection and Feeding of Children Attending Public Elementary Schools was established. The terms of reference were such that, to all intents and purposes, the Com• mittee was confined to noting results. Despite these limitations, the

Report when published in November of the same year, revealed some impor• tant facts. With regard to medical inspection the Committee concluded that the "results [left] something to be desired, and that there [was] 18 much room for improvement." Where medical problems or defects were identified the Committee found that, with the exception of minor ailments such as small sores which could be dealt with by nurses, no treatment was provided for fear of reducing the parents to poverty. In addition, it was found that medical investigations were conducted in only a few areas. Small towns and rural areas appeared to be particularly badly 19 off in this regard. As far as school feeding went, the Committee was not asked to establish the number of children in need of whether existing voluntary agencies could deal with the task: neither was it asked to evaluate whether the cost of feeding should be born out of public funds.

For this reason, Sir John Gorst and Dr. T. J. MacNamara declined the Committee's invitation to give evidence on grounds that no useful purpose 20 could be served. Nevertheless, in spite of the absence of two of the more important proponents of measures to improve child health and welfare, 172 and the fact that the Committee noted that there was a substantial number of voluntary school feeding organizations in operation—some 350 in total of which more than 150 were in London—the Report was able to convey the impression that the whole voluntary system of providing meals for school . . 21 children needed serious reorganizing.

To a certain extent, the responsibility for the Unionist Govern• ment's failure to do anything about- the pressing problems pointed out by the various Inter-departmental Committee Reports lay with the Local

Government Board and the Treasury. The former, until at least 1910, represented a very conservative institution drenched in the principles of the 'workhouse test' and 'less eligibility.' Roy Macleod who has examined the workings of the Local Government Board in some detail during this period has remarked:

Although the LGB had been among the first departments to scrutinise its administrative practices, the department lacked the fresh enthus• iasm which Robert Morant brought to its sister-board of Education. Instead two ageing and conservative vestiges of the "old School," Samuel Provis and Alfred Adrian, Permanent Secretary and Legal Adviser, respectively, remained in power as the LGB moved into the twentieth century. The animus of reform did not significantly per• vade the department/until both men retired in 1910. In the first dec• ade of the century, the Board was thus prey to those who saw it as the representative of all who opposed reform in the central machinery of government. The new century had scarcely begun when, during the sittings of the Committee of Supply, the Board was attacked for its dilatory response to growing demands for better housing, a revised poor law and improved national health. Sir Walter Foster, Parliamentary Sec• retary, took care to place the major blame for these delays at the door of the Treasury.22

If the Government thought it could get off the hook by ignoring the issues, by blaming the Treasury, or, at worst, by using delaying 173 tactics, it was mistaken. On 20 January 1905 the National Labour Confer• ence on the State Maintenance of Children met at the Guildhall and declared unanimously in favour of State maintenance "as a necessary

corollary of Universal Compulsory Education, and as a means of partially

arresting the physical deterioration of the industrial population of this

country, which is now generally recognized as a grave national danger,"

and called upon the Government to introduce legislation which would

permit local authorities to provide school children with meals out of 23

the national exchequer. The Government also faced a rising clamour

from teachers. The National Union of Teachers came out strongly in 24

favour of legislation at.their 1905 annual conference in Llandudno.

Likewise, a conference of School Attendance Officers' Association passed

a similar resolution.25

Agitation of this sort found many supporters in Parliament. On

14 February 1905 Sir John Gorst brought the matter up again. On the

23rd he promised the Government no respite until it did something, and

maintained: He would bring it upon the Irish Estimates, the Scottish Estimates, and the English Estimates, and he would entreat the Government for the sake of the nation and the Empire . . . not to neglect the recom• mendations of the Committee.26

Within a.month two Bills had been placed before the House for first read- 27

ing by Claude Hay and Arthur Henderson.

A visit in April by an impressive and influential quartet—Gorst,

Dr. Robert Hutchison, a leading dietician, Dr. T. J. MacNamara, and the

Countess of Warwick—to the now infamous Johanne Street School was 174

sufficient to cause both immediate local action and a debate in the House of Commons. An examination of twenty boys by Dr. Hutchison revealed malnutrition to be so acute that effective school work was quite impos- 28 sible. Pressure by the quartet on the local body responsible for the administration of the Poor Laws made the Lambeth Board of Guardians pro- 29

vide out-door relief for all necessitous school children in their area.

On 18 April 1905 J. B. Slack, the MP for St. Albans, proposed a motion

for school feeding. This resolution marked an.important stage in the movement for child health. Besides obtaining support from all sides of 30

the House the discussion allowed the Labour MP, Keir Hardie, to get to

the heart of the problem and to note a new feature. He said: It was no longer said that this matter should be left to private charity. The dispute at the present moment between those who sup• ported and those who opposed the motion was. as to whether the money necessary was to come from the education fund or the poor fund. This was a very important point gained. He understood the conten• tion of the Honourable Baronet [Sir George Bartley] who moved the Amendment was that parents whose children had to be provided for were in a condition of poverty because of their own intemperate habits. He desired most emphatically to protest against that assump• tion. The investigations made by Mr. Booth in London, and Mr. Rowntree at York proved conclusively that one-third of the population were in poverty not because they were intemperate or because they indulged in betting, but.because the wages they received were not sufficient to provide them with the requirements of comfort and decency. Were people in.that condition to be punished twice, first for denying them a living wage in exchange for labour, and next pauperizing them?31

He concluded his very astute speech by indicating a number of options 32

open to the House preferable to the pauperization of parents. More sig•

nificantly he pointed to paragraph number 426 of the Report of the Inter•

departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. The Board of Education 175 and the Local Government Board, he said, "should be more helpful pending 33

legislation." If they took this to heart something could be done pro• viding the debate engendered the "large-hearted sentiment" for which the

Report called. To all this William Anson could only promise that the

Local Government Board would be issuing an order to all Boards of Guar- 34

dians throughout the country by which school children might be fed.

When the Relief (School Children) Order was finally issued on 26

April 1906, its scope was extremely limited. Only children living with

their fathers in a permanent state of impoverishment, or where their

parents were able to pay for meals but failed to do so, were eligible.

According to C. A. Elliot, the Chairman of the Committee on Underfed

Children established by the London County.Council, the exclusion of all

orphans and children of widows reduced the number of underfed children

who were eligible by. more than half. Further, he believed that the

restriction to children in a permanent state of impoverishment ruled out 35

more than half the remainder.. Nevertheless, the Order did allow the

child of parents who. failed to pay to be fed.for a period of one month,

and for the Poor Law authorities to prosecute such parents for cruelty

or vagrancy. Despite the Order's limitations it is of particular signif•

icance for two reasons. First, though the Order left the working man

and his family firmly under the Poor Law, its importance, as in the case

36 of the Chamberlain Circular, lies in the fact that it represented3 a8 Second, reaction to the Order was such as to make it a dead letter37. definite indication of the direction in which things were moving. Within a very short time school authorities were up in arms over the 176

harsh methods of the so-called 'Guardians of the Poor' had come to believe

that they served no useful purpose for education. Parents became even more heated in their objection to the methods used and reacted by refus•

ing to allow their children to accept meals. Moreover, the Order had the

effect of cutting back the flow of voluntary subscriptions. As the Order

applied only to the absolutely destitute, this meant that many children

who were not technically destitute but who had been helped before because

they went to school hungry, were not permitted to be fed. In this way

the notion that the.only way to administer effectively the provision of

school meals was to put them under the direction of education authorities

was confirmed.. This had the effect of ensuring that no new Act of

Parliament providing either for the feeding or medical inspection of 39

school children would be entrusted to the Local Government Board.

When the electorate,decided that they had had enough of Unionist

government in December of 1905,. those who favoured the adoption of

measures to secure the health and welfare of children had no real reason

for believing that the new Liberal administration.under Sir Henry

Campbell-Bannerman would look any more favourably towards their plans

than A. J. Balfour's Cabinet had done. As has already been mentioned, the

Liberal leaders had been absent when the previous Government had been

defeated in a non-party vote. In addition, the Liberal election manifestos

has contained no mention of .plans for either the medical inspection or

feeding of public elementary school children. Thus when William Wilson,

the newly elected Labour MP for Lancaster, won the draw for private mem•

ber's Bills, luck took a slight hand in keeping the spotlight of public 177 attention on the issues and in maintaining pressure on Britain's leader- ,.40 ship.

Robert Morant, the senior civil servant at the Board of Education was forewarned of Wilson.'s intentions. He went uninvited to a meeting of

the Independent Labour Party at Clifford's Inn where the physical welfare

of children was under discussion, and assured those present of his agree- 41 ment with their aims. How he came to be there is uncertain. On the

evidence of his Educational Code of 1902 and a letter he later wrote to

Margaret McMillan he had long thought that the physical condition of 42 scholars was of more importance than the subjects taught. What seems

likely is that the Webbs, knowing of Morant's beliefs, advised him of

the forthcoming meeting. In any event Morant advised his opposite number

at the Local Government Board that a proposal was imminent and suggested 43

that they should organize talks between their two departments.

The Bill eventually put before Parliament gave the responsibility

for school feeding to local authorities. Opening the second reading of

the Bill, Wilson stated that there were many families existing on less

than 18 shillings a week, a sum clearly insufficient to feed a growing

family. Returning to the well-used efficiency arguments he asked the

House to look at the Bill strictly on business grounds, and argued that

the money spent on school meals would be well invested "because not only would the children be better equipped for fighting the battle pf life, but it would be found . . . that the expenditure on prisons, workhouses, 44

and asylums was considerably reduced." During the debate, which followed

the President of the Board of Education made an important acknowledgement. 178

Besides concurring that the French experience indicated that educational authorities were the appropriate branch of government to administer school meals, he stated that "if the child could not be taught before it was fed, 45

then fed It had to be." In spite of this admission Birrell attempted

to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Many MP's having been fooled by

this tactic once too often saw this move as yet another delaying device 46

and would have nothing to do with it. To reduce the disquiet John

Burns, the President of the Local Government Board, agreed to adopt the

Bill and to devote Government time to it as soon as the Select Committee's 47

report was received. In this way, and not because of any legal or moral obligation, the Liberal Cabinet, though with obvious initial reluc•

tance, came to support this measure of social reform and eventually to introduce the most remarkable and controversial invasion of the Poor Law 48 yet seen. The exact nature of the new attitude that this invasion

represented was made clear in a speech to the House of Lords by Lord The children are the paramount consideration . . . In a great many Grimthorpecases .th eH parente remarkeds are.alread: y demoralized owing to themselves having been insufficiently, nourished in their youth. Because they suffer from these conditions there is no reason why we should inflict simi• lar conditions on the children . . . Experience in these matters shows us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is re• garded by the nation as a valuable national asset, he himself will think more of the child.49

When the Bill was finally enacted on 21 December 1906, it was not as extensive as originally proposed. Ironically the Lords had excluded,

at the Bill's penultimate stage,, the very children who had been the 179

earliest subject of investigation, from the benefits of the Act. This

symptom of revolt by the Lords maintained the high level of public in• terest that the Bill had held right to the last. It caused the Liberal

Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to tell the House, in his only intervention in defence of school meals, that while the Lords'

Amendment would have to be accepted their objections were all "moonshine."

Specifically he stated that the removal of Scotland from the Bill repre•

sented "the strongest case of inversion of authority on these Constitu•

tional matters, that they had ever seen. Stronger than the Education 50

Bill, stronger than the Plural Voting Bill, was this little thing."

Despite the Act's limitations there is no doubt it represented a major yard-stick of social progress. The seed sown so long ago by Victor Hugo

and the Destitute Children' Dinner association had at last come to national.fruition. The controversy concerning 'over-pressure in elemen•

tary schools had allowed the matter to germinate, and the National

Efficiency movement and the crisis created by the Boer war had proved 51

that compulsory education without feeding was harmful to health. The

law in its final form was permissive, merely providing local education authorities with the power to provide public elementary school children with meals. No authority was compelled to feed needy children. Author•

ities were permitted three alternatives for funding such programmes.

They could either solicit monies from voluntary organizations or ask their students to pay for the food they received, or, in the last resort, they could provide the meals out of public funds on condition that the charge on the rates did not exceed more than one halfpenny in the pound. 180

In effect, this last alternative demonstrated that the State had at last

fully recognized that it had a duty to protect the health and welfare of

its children. Something of a social revolution had, in fact, occurred.

The child of the working man had become a vital national resource. A

legal precedent had been established by which a particular group within

the community might obtain social welfare without having to suffer the

rigours of the Poor Law. In philosophic terms the Act established a principle for further social reforms. But most important of all, it

helped remove the threat of disenfranchisement, the fear of pauperiza•

tion, and the belief that those then at the bottom of the social pyramid were second-class citizens.

II

While the fight against the Education (Provision of Meals) Act

of 1906 was mainly in terms, of the principle involved, opposition to the provision of medical inspection of children attending public elementary

schools was mainly over details. For this reason, the Education

(Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907 which incorporated medical in•

spection for elementary school children, never sparked the same public

commotion that the.School. Meals Act had created.

Reference has already been made in an earlier chapter to the

first medical inspections of school children in Bradford by Dr. James

Kerr, and to the terrible state of health and hygiene that these inspec•

tions revealed. Likewise, mention has already been made.of the adoption

of both school feeding and the medical inspection of school children as 181 part of the programme of State maintenance advocated by socialist groups during the latter part of the nineteenth century. In the period before

the National Efficiency campaign moved into top gear few new voices were

heard asking for the medical inspection of school children. From the

time when national physical deterioration became.a matter of grave con•

sideration, however, the subject of medical inspection emerged as a

topic of considerable ..importance and much debate. This concern took two

forms. On the one.hand there were those who wanted to make sure, by

establishing an anthropometric survey, that the British race was not physically deteriorating before their eyes. On the other were those who saw.the terrible conditions of working-class child life on a regular

basis and wanted a system of medical inspections set up so that something

could be done to reduce the amount of disease and sickness.

One of the first to propose school medical inspection on behalf

of the former group was that ardent imperialist and close friend of

Chamberlain, Milner and Rhodes, Sir Edward Grey. In November of 1901.

he wrote a letter to the London Times in connection with their "Crisis

in British Industry" series of articles. He believed that the real

crisis lay not with the nature.of British industry itself but in the

condition of the average British worker. Specifically he was worried

that it might not be possible for the third generation of slum^-born, polluted-city dwellers to bear the heavy burden of empire. He argued

that the success of Britain's livestock farmers in nearly doubling the

size of British breeds of cattle and sheep over a fifty-year period by

recording their weights and by paying careful attention to the needs of 182 the animals in their charge, offered a perfect example for the rearing of children in Britain. He suggested an annual stock-taking in which every school child be weighed, and measured as an essential preliminary 52 to the adoption of measures to secure the national physique. According to the Presidential Address of Sir James Crichton-Browne to the Medical

Section of the International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of

Children on 15 July 1902, the favourable reception given to this proposal marked a great and beneficial.change in the British attitude towards 53 child study.

Official recognition and endorsement for the idea of medical inspection for school children also came from both the medical profession and from teachers.. On 14 November 1903, some five days before Dr. Arthur

Newsholme's article, "The Organization of the Medical Inspection of

Schools," was published in the British Medical Journal, the British 54 .

Medical Association came .out in. favour of medical inspection. A little more than a year later a meeting of the Society of Medical Officers of

Health urged that medical inspection should be conducted by general practitioners, not special whole-time doctors or Medical Officers of 55

Health. The British Medical Journal was quick to notice the importance of this. Within a few days .the Journal had begun a campaign to draw the distinction, between the two ways of dealing with the medical inspection of school children. On 14 January 1905, a leading article pointed out that the periodical medical inspection that Sir Lauder Brunton had talked of when he had introduced the subject to the meeting of Medical Officers of Health,, would fail to pick out the feeble-minded, the short-sighted 183

and the underfed child before preventable damage was done. On the other hand, it argued, the general practitioner, because he knew both the area

and the local people, and because he could visit the local schools on a

regular basis, would be able to supervise the health of the children in•

volved, and cases of infectious diseases, underfeeding and overpressure 56 would be spotted quickly.. The Journal continued to keep this point of

view before its readers over the next few months. In February of 1906,

the Journal, in another leading article, took its proposal a stage

further. Because only two of the fifty-eight county councils had ap• proved an organized scheme.of medical .inspections (less than seventeen

had actually.discussed the. matter), and as it.believed the forthcoming

report of the Royal Commissioners on the care and control of the feeble•

minded was bound to reiterate the recommendation of the Committee on

Physical Deterioration for medical inspection of school children, the

Journal suggested, a four-point plan for medical inspection: (i) that

there should be.a medical department at the Board of Education; (ii)

that there should be a medical officer for schools for each local educa•

tion authority; (iii) that the salaries of MOH's should appear in the

Education. Account; and (iv) each authority should submit a report to 57 the Medical Department of the Board of Education. In August of 1904, the editor of the Schoolmaster (an organ of 58

the National Union of Teachers) Dr. T. J. MacNamara, a man with some

thirty years experience in elementary education as both a teacher and a member of the London School Board, wrote an article for Nineteenth

Century and After entitled, "The Physical Condition of Working-class 184

Children," which strongly favoured the introduction of medical inspec•

tion. MacNamara's argument is interesting because it shows how opposite

sides of the political spectrum could come together to preserve the health.of children. Besides insisting that it was both essential to the prosperity of.the nation and a duty, not just of the benevolently in•

clined, but.of the community as a whole to see that every child had food

to eat, warm clothing to put on, and a comfortable house to live in,

MacNamara also considered that the medical inspection of school children was a communal obligation. All this, he argued, might sound like "rank

socialism" but, in fact, it.was nothing more than "first-class imper•

ialism." To prove his point he asked only that people should read the

59

last article in a recently, published report of the Board of Education which showed just how. far people in Brussels considered their obligation

to their children to run.60

Semi-official groups also endorsed the idea of the medical inspec•

tion of school children. One such, group called the National League for

Physical Education and Improvement included a number of Medical Officers

of Health and.such influential people as the Bishops of Ripon and South- wark, Bramwell Booth, R. B. Haldane, Lord Alverstone, and the man who

had started off the whole dabate. on physical deterioration, Major-General

Sir Frederick Maurice. In February of 1906 this group sent a delegation

to the Board of Education.to see if they could use their influence pri• vately to have the medical inspection of school children included in the

Education Bill that they knew was being prepared at the time.61

Besides arguments based on British business efficiency, 185 imperialism, physical deterioration and strictly medical reasons, demo• graphic considerations also influenced those who advocated the medical inspection of school children. As long ago as 1883 J. R. Seeley had argued in Expansion of England that the same technological advances which had once made larger political units possible would also be the undoing of such units were the states in question not to expand their scale of operation.62 It was perhaps with this comment in mind that

Joseph Chamberlain put forward the hypothesis, in a speech at the Guild• hall in January of 1904, that in military or economic rivalries, victory 6 3 would go to the one with the big battalions.. It was not without good reason, therefore, that.the growing disparity between the population of 64

Germany and that of Britain began to cause alarm.

The medical profession became particularly alarmed at the declin• ing birthrate and the appallingly high infant mortality-rate. In June of 1905 Dr. Sampson Moore,, the Medical. Officer of Health for Hudders- field, published.a very detailed report on infant mortality. It went through four editions, in a very short time. Dr. G. F. McLeary, a lead• ing authority on the early infant welfare movement, believed that "it

[was] doubtful whether any other report by a medical officer of health

[had] had such a popular reception.."65 This success was. quickly followed by the publication of.Dr. George Newman's influential book, Infant

Mortality (1906). Also in 1905 the first infant welfare congress was held on the Continent. Though the British Government did not send official representatives, local authorities such as Huddersfield, Batter- sea and Glasgow did.66 In June of the following year a national 186 conference on infant mortality was held in London. Shortly afterwards

Dr. George Newman, who was soon to join Robert Morant at the Board of

Education as the Chief.Medical Officer, noted that Britain was "burning the candle at both ends." He pointed out that in 1905 alone some 120,000 infants under one year of age had died and that this was very grave in view of the marked decline in the birth rate. "It is idle to wonder at physical deterioration," he continued:

If the majority of the nation's infants have before they grow up to pass under such unfavourable influences as are able to kill 150 in every thousand. A high infant mortality must therefore be taken, as Sir John Simon said, to denote a prevalence of those causes and con• ditions which, in the long run, being about a degeneration of the race.67

As a result, he argued, that the first remedy needed was regular medical inspection, and advocated that each child should be examined at least three times during its school, life, while those needing treatment should be examined more often.68

On 26 May 1905 a sub-committee of the Fabian Society was set up to consider the very problem of birth-rate and infant mortality sta• tistics. This committee provided an informal interim statement to The

Times on the 11th and,18th of October, 1906. The most alarming fact revealed by the report was the confirmation of an earlier statement by the eugenicist, Karl Pearson, that the poorest 25 per cent of the British population were producing about 50 per cent of the next generation.

This, according to Sidney Webb, the author of the report, could only lead to national deterioration. Webb's solution, as had been Pearson's, was the 'endowment of motherhood.' He stated confidently: Once the production of healthy, moral and intelligent citizens is reveired as a social service and made the subject of deliberate praise and encouragement on the.part of the Government, it will, we may be sure, attract the best and most patriotic citizens.^9

The first indication that the question of medical inspection of school children was to be raised.in Parliament came as early as 2 April

1906. On that day the Labour MP, Will Thorne, introduced a Bill which would not only have provided secular education and a free meal to every child, attending State-supported schools, but would also have made it necessary for every local, education authority to appoint a medical officer to carry out the medical inspection of students. In both the case of meals and of medical inspections the costs were to be met by 70 the Imperial Exchequer. Because the Bill was brought forward by a private member and time was limited, medical inspection never reached the order paper on this occasion.

The demand for the medical inspection of school children began in earnest in Parliament with the Education Bill of 1906. On 9 April, the newly-elected Liberal MP, C. F. G. Masterman, came out against the

Government, in his maiden speech to the House, because he believed that the Bill did not go far enough. Particularly he pointed to the question of medical inspection which he noted had been started by a few local authorities in a rather random and spasmodic manner. He believed there were many MP's who would like to see such practices carried out systema- 71 tically at the national charge. In between readings the matter was taken up by the Labour MP for Merthyr Tydvil. He specifically asked the President of the Board of Education whether he contemplated the 188 creation of a special medical staff to supervise the efforts of the local educational authorities in attending to the health and physical 72 condition of the children in their charge.

On 14 July the Liberal MP for Berwickshire, H. J. Tennant, him• self a Scot, proposed an Amendment to the Education Bill for England and

Wales. This would specifically have made it a duty of every local authority to attend to the health and physical condition of children in their charge. . In support of his claim that arguments for medical inspec• tion were "overwhelming," he cited statements from.the Inter-departmental

Committee on Physical Deterioration, the Royal Commission on Physical

Training (Scotland), and the recent study concerning the physical condi• tion of children in Dundee undertaken by the Dundee Social Union, as well as bringing the House's.attention to the compulsory programme for medical inspection in Germany., Switzerland, and the United States of America.

"Education in this country," he said, "was compulsory and universal, and therefore the conditions upon which education depended ought to be 73 compulsory." There then followed a lengthy debate in which a consider• able amount of support was advocated and little objection to the measure heard. C. F. G. Masterman .registered his opinion that no satisfactory settlement could be reached until there was medical inspection of 74 schools. Sir Gilbert Parker reminded the House that the request for the measure had come from both sides of the House and argued that if a plebecite were to be held tomorrow a great majority would be found to support it. In addition, he believed that inspection would have as great an effect on the lives and health of slum children as had compulsory 189

75 attendance. T. J. McNamara pointed out that Brussels, a city one-tenth the size of London, had eight times as large a medical staff as had

Britain's capital. He was of the view that the problem, before the House was much more pressing than anything the Board of Education had worried about in. the last three years.76 On one thing many MP's of all parties agreed: a system of medical., inspection would be worth all the rest of 77 the Bill put together.

It was as the result.of a question by W. C. Bridgeman, the MP for Oswestry, that matters turned to the important, question.of treatment.

In addition to reminding the Committee that there was also the matter of pre-schoolers to be considered, he asked for clarification on whether the Amendment meant to include the cost of treatment. It was perhaps for this reason that Augustine Birrell asked for the acceptance of an

Amendment which would, clearly put the onus of responsibility with the 78 local authorities not the central government. The advocacy of this Amendment by the President of the Board of Education led Dr. T. J.

McNamara to ask Birrell whether he meant inspection on a compulsory 79 basis. In response Birrell stated that it was not in his mind that 80 there should be treatment. MacNamara replied that he had not asked 81 about treatment but .-.about inspection. To this Birrell argued that 82 inspection, on a continuous .basis implied treatment. Seen in that light

C. F. G. Masterman believed that Birrell's Amendment did not represent the desires of the committee and that inspection would be quite useless 83 unless it was carried out on a continuous basis. All this discussion, though proving the profound interest in the medical inspection of school 190

children, was to be of no avail as Birrell's Amendment was to die with the Bill in December of 1906.

Early in the new year two other Bills were presented to Parliament which incorporated the medical inspection of school children. The first of these was also a private member's Bill. On 15 February Walter Rea, the Liberal MP for Scarborough introduced a Bill to be known as the Edu• cation (Vacation Schools and Medical Inspection) Act. This Bill took verbatim the two operative clauses from the 1906 Education Bill. The one dealing with medical inspection stated that it was:

The duty [of every local authority] to provide for the medical inspec• tion of children before or at the time of their admission to public elementary school, and on such other occasions as the Board of Educa• tion direct, and the power to make such arrangements as may be sancti• fied by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools.84

The second Bill, to be known as the Education (Administrative Provisions)

Act, was introduced on behalf of the Government by the newly appointed

President of the Board of.Education, Reginald McKenna, and was supported by Augustine Birrell and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of

Education, Thomas Lough.. It included among a number of provisions the same two measures, in exactly the same wording, as were present in Rea's 85 original proposal.

On 1 March Rea introduced his Bill for second reading. He made it perfectly clear that the two operative clauses had come directly from the derelict Education Bill. Specifically he noted that both of the clauses, and particularly the one dealing with medical inspection which 191 he considered to be the more important one of the two, had already been accepted by the leader of the Opposition, by Sir William Anson, and by 86

Dr. T. J. MacNamara., as well as both sides of the House generally. At that time Thomas Lough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of

Education said that there were perfectly good reasons why the Government should give the Bill its "benevolent support": not only were the two clauses taken from a Government measure, but both had been regarded as being 'non-contentious' in both the Lords and the Commons. In addition, he stated that he saw no reason why the Bill should be rejected just be- 87 cause the Government was introducing an Education Bill.

Three months later there was still no sign of the Government's

Bill. When Rea's Bill came up for consideration on 14 June after being 88 . amended by a Standing Committee, it came as no surprise to anyone when

Colonel Lockwood expressed the opinion that the measure ought to be adopted by the Government. Furthermore, he told the House that he had recently had the opportunity of introducing an influential deputation .to the President of the Board of Education and that they had strongly empha- 89 sized the need for the supervision of child health. It was also at this point that W. W. Ashley asked for the insertion of a clause which would allow local authorities.to recover the cost of "attending to the 90 health and physical condition of children." It is clear from Lough's reply not only that members of the Government were well aware that treat- 91 ment would be involved, but also that such treatment was necessary. In the division that was forced those in favour of recovering the costs from parents were overwhelmed by a considerable margin (229 to 39). At least four members of the Cabinet were present and helped defeat the 92 motion. 192

Despite its successful-passage through the House-the Bill 93 never came up for a third reading, nor was formally adopted by the

Government. Instead the Government preferred to proceed with the second reading of its own Bill. On 31 July McKenna introduced what he called a

"non-contentious" Bill. Far from allowing medical inspection to be hidden in a mass of other provisions, the President of the Board of 94 Education drew specific attention to Clause 10 and stressed that it dealt with the subject of medical inspection in exactly the same form as the one which had been.introduced by Rea and had already been approved 95 by the House. Nevertheless, on 12.August, after the Bill had returned from the Standing Committee, the Opposition introduced the principle, as they had done when the Education Bill of 1906 and Rea's Bill had been discussed, of charging parents who could afford to pay for treatment. 96

As on the previous occasions such a proposition was quashed in division.

At the second reading of the Bill in the Lords no attempt was made to enshroud the medical inspection clause in a cloud of other issues. To the contrary, the Earl of Crewe who introduced the Bill on behalf of the Government., drew specific attention to the fact that McKenna had been unable to accept the proposal that parents who could afford to pay for treatment.should be made to do so on similar lines to the Pro• vision of Meals Act. Specifically he argued that in a number of in• stances the failure to attend to child health problems was due more to ignorance than to neglect.and that if parents were to be charged for visits of doctors and nurses to their homes as the result of school medi• cal inspections, the result would be that parents would refuse to allow 193 such people into their homes. He also pointed out that the cost of med• ical inspection was to be met by an increased grant to local authorities 97 in the next Estimates.

It would, therefore, appear that the Education (Administrative

Provisions) Act which was finally enacted on 28 August 1907, came about in a very frank and candid manner. There can be no doubt that all in• volved, knew that medical inspection meant treatment. That the Act came 98 about without the public clamour that accompanied.the School Meals Act owed more to the fact that the medical inspection of school children had become a non-contentious issue long before the Liberal Government attempted to deal with it, than to the political antics of Robert 99

Morant. In turn, the reason it was no longer contentious owed much to the establishment of the principle that the health and welfare of children was to be considered as being of more importance than the demor• alization of the parents which the School Meals Act had embodied. Even among those who were sincerely concerned about how the costs of this new service were to be met there is evidence to suggest that the majority considered the ability of the local authority to pay for the measure a more important motive for asking the parents to meet the costs of out-of- school treatment than the demoralizing effect of free treatment on the parents. Therefore, while it is impossible to assess fully the involve• ment of Robert Morant in the development of measures to enhance the health and welfare of children before 1908 On the basis of existing evi- 100 dence, it would appear that if there was any "administrative-political trick" on the part of the Board's Permanent Secretary, it was in reality 194 nothing more than a mild deception. What seems more likely is that what

Morant held back from McKenna was not that inspection would lead to treatment—McKenna knew that--but rather his estimate of the magnitude of disease and deformity amongst the child population. As a result,

McKenna was neither able to estimate realistically the cost of rectify• ing the situation nor to foresee the demand for a large medical depart• ment that would necessarily arise. In this way the Education (Adminis• trative Provisions) Act of 1907 inaugurated quietly a medical service based on personal health care, not public health. Equally important, the Act, by setting up regular medical examinations for children, opened the way for the practice of preventative medicine. In so doing the Act found great favour with the bulk of the medical profession and social reformers like Margaret McMillan.

Whatever the case, in the years that followed Morant's hypothesis was proven correct. Medical inspection of school children and Reports by the Commissioners on the Poor Law showed that vast sections of the working class were plagued by sickness as they grew up. To rectify this situation the Board of Education expanded its Medical Department, made more funds available, sent out numerous Circulars on how to improve child health, helped, found school clinics and did a host of other things including attempting to co-ordinate the work of school medical officers with that of public health officials. Revelations concerning the appal• ling standards of recruits for the British Army during the First World

War pushed affairs a stage further. In 1918 an Education Act was passed which made it the duty of local education authorities to provide treatment 195 for dental and visual defects, enlarged tonsils and adenoids, minor ailments generally and ringworm. In the following year a further

Education Act made treatment compulsory. In many ways the Act was re• dundant. By that time nine out of ten local education authorities had begun to exercise their powers and had been responsible for establish• ing some seven hundred school clinics. In a number of instances these school clinics were combined with maternity and child welfare centres saving space and the duplication of treatment equipment. In addition, many education authorities had made special arrangements with local hospitals.1^"'" The stage was set for the establishment of a full

Ministry of Health with Sir Robert Morant as its first Permanent

Secretary. 196

FOOTNOTES

1 The context in which the 1 break-up' of the Poor Law is normally understood is the period of social reforms of the first decade of the twentieth century. A contemporary of the period, W. A. Bailward, "Some Recent Developments of Poor Relief," Economic Journal, 22 (December 1912) wrote of the 'break-up' in the following terms: "The movement known as the 'break-up' of the Poor Law has set in with increasing rapidity within the last few years; and to-day some four or five different bodies admin• ister relief where there was only one before . . . The principle Acts by which the 'break-up' has been effected are the Unemployed Workman's Act of 1905, the Provision of Meals Act of 1906, the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 and the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907 . . . ." W. A. Bailward.was a senior member of the Charity Organization Society. See S. and B. Webb, English Poor Law History, 2, The Last Hundred Years, 9 (London, 1929), 808. 2 For example, see the activities of the Departmental Committee to Look into Ways of Improving the Administrative Procedures of the War Office (1900); The Royal Commission, on the Medical Arrangements for the South African War (1900).; Departmental Inquiry into the Break-down of Remounts; Royal Commission of Inquiry into, the War in South Africa (1903); The Butler Committee on the Disposal of War Stores (1905) . These were in addition to the ones dealing with the health of the nation. 3 B. B. Gilbert, "Sir John Eldon Gorst and the Children of the Nation," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 28 (1954), 244. 4 See, for example, Sir John E. Gorst, "Children's Rights," National Review, 45 (June 1905), 705-15; "Social Reform," Nineteenth Century and After, 53 (March 1903), 519-32; "Governments and Social Reform," Fortnightly Review, 77 n.s. (May 1905), 843-55. 5 Herbert Asquith referred to what had been created at St. Jude's Whitechapel in these terms. See H. M. Lynd, England in the 1880's (London, 1945), p. 221. Toynbee Hall along with the Royal Statistical Society were the two bases from which Charles Booth conducted his monu• mental study of London. 6 Some of the more distinguished residents were: Ernest Aves, Sir William Beveridge, Sir W. J. Braithwaite, Sir H. Llewelyn Smith, Sir Robert Morant, Vaughn Nash, Sir Arthur Slayter (civil servants); A. M. Carr-Saunders, Henry Clay, Sir Gregory Foster, Sir Cyril Jackson, D. H. MacGregor, R. H. Tawney, E. H. Urwick (educators), Justice Herbert du Parcq; Sir Walter Layton, J. A. Spender (Journalists); Clement Atlee, Lord Pentland, and E. F. Wise (politicians). 7 Sir George Newman, Health and Social Evolution (London, 1931), 197 p. 133, has suggested that school medical services had their origins in the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf) Act of 1893 and the Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act of 1899. 8 As Vice President of the Privy Council Gorst was the presiding officer of the Committee on Education.. This was renamed the Board of Education in 1899. g

Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (10 August 1904), col. 54.

10 Ibid. (9 July 1903), col. 194. X± Sir John E. Gorst, "Mr. Chamberlain's Proposals," North Amer• ican Review, 161 (August 1903), 163-64. 12 Ibid., p. 164. 13 Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (4 March 1904), and (28 March 1904) , col. 905. On 28 March .he said he wished: "to direct attention to the physical condition.of the children in elementary schools. This matter has frequently been discussed by the House, and he wished to know how long it was to remain a subject of discussion and inquiry and when the Board of Education would see its way clear to make some practical steps to ameliorate the condition of the children." For Claude Hay's motion see ibid. (20 April 1904), col. 789. 14 Ibid. (10 August 1904), col. 53. 15 Ibid., col. 82-83.

16 See R. L. Morant to A. J. Balfour (3 December 1904), British Museum, Add. MSS. 49787, Balfour Papers, 105, f. 123: cited by B. B. Gilbert, "Health and Politics: The British Physical Deterioration Report of 1904," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 39 (1965), 150. 17 See Lord Londonderry to Cabinet, MS. Memorandum (10 February 1905) , Ministry of Education, Private Office Papers "Education (Pro• vision of Meals) Bill," unsorted: cited by Gilbert, "Health and Politics," p. 151. 18 "Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Inspec• tion and Feeding.of School Children Attending Public Elementary Schools," Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 2779 (1905), p. 31, sect. 113. 19 Ibid., p. 14, sect. 60. 20 Ibid., p. 33, sect. .114. The Committee noted, that Gorst and MacNamara had given their unrestricted opinion as to "how adequate nutri• tion could be obtained." The terms of reference were restricted to 198 ascertaining the, results of medical inspection of school children in public elementary schools, and inquiring into methods, expenditures and relief given by voluntary agencies for the provision of meals for chil• dren attending such schools and to reporting on whether relief of this character could be better organized without any charge on public funds. It should be stressed that the Committee emphasized the narrow limits in which they were permitted to operate. 21 See L. Andrews, "The School Meals Service," British Journal of Educational.Studies, 20 (February 1972) , 72. 22 See R. MacLeod, "Treasury Control and Social Administration: A Study of Establishment Growth at the Local Government Board, 1871- 1905," Occasional Papers on Social Administration, 23 (1968), 39-40. 23 See the Report of the National Labour Conference on the State Maintenance of Children (1905), p. 25: cited by M. E. Buckley, The Feed• ing of School Children (London 1914), p. 32. 24 See the "Report of the Select Committee on Education (Pro• vision of Meals) Bill (England and Wales),. Parliamentary Papers (1906), Cd. 288, Qs. 792, 924, and 925: cited by Buckley, pp. 32-33. 25 Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (18 April 1905), p. 533: cited by Buckley, p. 33. 2 6 Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser. (23 February 1904), col. 1145. 27 Ibid. (27 and 29 March 1905), cols. 1307-9 and 1543. 28 The Johanna Street School,had been one place which had re• vealed terrible conditions. See Minutes of Evidence, "Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration," Cd. 2210. On 20 March, Anson had visited the school and found nothing amiss. See Parliamentary Debates (20 March 1905), cols. 455-56. Gorst's descrip• tion of these events may. be. found in the Children of the Nation (New York, 1907), pp. 86-87. 29 See Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain: The Origins of the Welfare State. (London, 1966), p. 99. 30 See Buckley, p. 38. 31 Parliamentary Debates (18 April 1905), col. 531. 32 Ibid., col. 534. 33 Ibid., col. 556. For details of this paragraph see previous chapter. 199

34 Ibid., col. 562. The division over J. B. Slack's motion was not treated as a party question. It is interesting to note that no Liberal leader was present when the vote was taken. The Government was defeated by a margin of 100 votes to 64. 35 See Appendix G, Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children for the Session 1904-5, London County Council (July 1905), p. 23. 36 See Circular issued by the Local Government Board, 15 March 1886: see chapter 2, n. 103. 37 . See Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance m Great Britain, pp. 100-101. 38 See Louise S. Bryant, School Feeding, Its Origins and Prac• tice at Home and Abroad. (Philadelphia, 1913), p. 42. 39 Ibid., p. 42. 40 W. T. Wilson was Chairman of the Amalgamated. Society of Car• penters and Joiners.. Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance, p. 109, n. 17, has suggested that Gorst "may have made one of his most important of his many contributions to social reform by obtaining from the Trade Union Congress in 1904 a resolution in favour of school feed• ing." 41 . See Bernard Allen, Sir Robert Morant: A Great Public Servant (London, 1934), p. 231. 42 Ibid. 43 See R. L. Morant (unsigned) to Samuel Provis (23 February 1906), Ministry of Education, Bill File, Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906. This stated that Morant believed his President's mind was practically a blank on the subject, and that the Liberal Party was prob• ably divided on the issue. In order to put Augustine Birrell in the picture, Morant prepared a memorandum on 26 February which reviewed the history of school feeding, the evidence to the Inter-departmental Com• mittee on Physical Deterioration and the background to the Local Govern• ment Board Order of 26^-April 1905. See Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, p. 110. 44 Parliamentary Debates (2 March 1906), col. 1390ff. 45 Ibid., col. 1440-43. 46 See, for example, the speech of Will Crooks. He asked specif• ically that the Charity Organization not be allowed to give evidence as he believed they would try to delay the reform. See ibid., col. 1448. 200

47 Ibid., cols. 1446-47. 48 See S. and B. Webb, p. 110. They place the importance of this measure in this light. 49 Parliamentary Debates (20 December 1906), col. 1637. 50 Ibid. (21 December 1906), cols. 1870-72. 51 Sir George Newman, The Building of the Nation's Health (London, 1939), has suggested that a movement to feed needy school children began to make headway in the latter part of the nineteenth century; Sir Arthur Newsholme, Fifty Years in Public Health: A Personal Narrative with Com• ments (London, 1935), pp. 385-87, has indicated how in 1884 'over• pressure' in elementary schools was probably instrumental in focussing attention on under-feeding. In March 1902, Newsholme read a paper to the Childhood Society entitled, "A Plea for the Exclusion of Children under Five Years of Age from Public Elementary Schools." He noted that his concerns about the harmful affects of education were reflected in the official memorandum of Robert Morant to the Education Code of 1905. This stated, "children under five years of age are not required by law to attend school, and there is reason for believing that the attendance of such children is often accompanied by danger to health." 52 See The Times (26,.November 1901). 53 See Sir James Crichton-Browne, "Physical Efficiency in Chil• dren," Presidential Address to the Medical Section of the International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children (London, 1902), p. 4. 54 Arthur Newsholme had already presented a paper to the Ses• sional Meeting of the Sanitary Institute entitled, "The Health of Scholars, with Special Reference to the Educational Code of the Board of Education," in 1899. He noted in Fifty Years in Public Health, pp. 390- 91, that the Society of Medical Officers of Health having heard a paper that was published in Public Health, 15, by Dr. Meredith Richards, passed certain resolutions which were forwarded to both the Board of Education and the Local Government Board. One advocated inter alia that "the hygiene control of public elementary and other public schools should devolve on the medical officer of health of the district"; and that "the medical officer of health should be required to record the actions taken by his department in regard to schools, and to forward annually to the Board of Education such portions of his report as relate..to this subject." He also noted (p. 392): "The British Medical Association was active in forcing the hand of the Board of Education; and in Scotland much pioneer work in expediting the medical inspection of school and scholars was accomplished." 55 See The Times (10.January 1905). 201

56 See the British Medical Journal (14 January 1905), p. 85.

57 Ibid. (17 February. 1905), pp. 400-402. 58 T. J. MacNamara was editor of the Schoolmaster and a member of the London School Board between 1896 and 1902. In 1900 he became the Liberal MP for Camberwell. In 1907 he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government.. Board. In addition, MacNamara had been elected as the President of the National Union of Teachers in 1896. He was a strong Nonconformist. 59 See Jessie D. Montgomery, "School Hygiene in Brussels," Special Reports on Educational Subjects, 2, Parliamentary Papers, C 8943 (1898) . 60 Dr. T. J. MacNamara, "The Physical Condition .of Working-class Children," Nineteenth Century and After, 56 (August 1904), 307-11.

61 The delegation visited the Board of Education on 27 February 1906. See Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, pp. 122-23. For information regarding the formation and activ• ities of this organization see Public Health, 16 (February 1905), 274-92, or The Times (20 and 29 June 1905). 62 See G. R. Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency, A Study in British Politics and Political Thought, 1899-1914 (Oxford, 1971), p. 70. 63 „ See ibid. 64 In 1850 Germany's population was not quite eleven millions greater than Britain's.: In 1871 Germany's population;was less than ten millions greater than Britain's. But by 1900 Germany's population was nearly fourteen millions greater. See Andre Armengaud, "Population in Europe, 1700-1914," Fontana Economic History of Europe (London, 1970), p. 14, and Sir Robert Ensor, England 1870-1914 (London, 1966), p. 102. 65 G. F. McLeary, The Early History of the Infant Welfare Move• ment (London, 1933), p. 90.

66 See G. F. McLeary, The Maternity and Child Welfare Movement (London, 1935), p. 9. 67 See George Newman, The Health and the State (London, 1907), pp. 109-10. 68 Ibid. 69 See Sidney Webb, "The Decline in the Birthrate," Fabian Tract, 202

131 (1907). For an examination of Karl Pearson's views see his letter to The Times (25 August 1905). 70 See Bill to be known as Elementary State Education Act, Parlia• mentary Papers (1906), 2, p. 199. The Bill was supported by Messrs. Barnes, Roberts, Walsh, Richards, Henderson, Hudson, and Parker. 71 See Parliamentary- Debates (9 April 1906), cols. 1046-51. 72 Ibid. (14 June 1906), cols. 1144-45.

73 Ibid. (14 July 1906), cols. 1376-79. 74 Ibid., cols. 1379-80. 75 Ibid., cols. 1380-82. 76 Ibid., cols. 1382-83. 77 For example: Sxr William Anson, C..-F. G. Masterman, Dr. T. J. MacNamara. 78 See Parliamentary Papers (14 July 1906), cols. 1395-98. The Amendment stated: "Shall be the duty.of every local authority to provide for the medical inspection of every child on its application for admis• sion to public elementary school, and on such other occasion as the Board of Education may direct or the local education authority may think fit." 79

Ibid., col. 1398.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid. 82 , . , Ibid. Ibid., col. 1399. 84 See Bill to be known as Education (Vacation Schools and Med• ical Inspection) Act, Parliamentary Papers, 1 (1907), p. 793: the Bill was supported by Messrs. Shackleton, F. E. Smith, Tomkinson, Williamson, Guest, Masterman, and Tennant. 85 See Clause 10 of Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill as presented .by McKenna on 28 February, Parliamentary Papers, 1 (1907), p. 801. 86 Parliamentary Papers (1 March 1907), cols. 425-27. 203

87 Parliamentary Papers. (1. March 1907), cols. 427-28. The Bill passed its second reading without division. 88 The Standing Committee merely added the proviso with regard to vacation schools: "that in any exercise of powers under this section the local education authority may encourage and assist the establishment or continuance of voluntary agencies and associate with itself represen• tatives of voluntary associations for the purpose." See Bill to be called Education (Vacation Schools and Medical.Inspection) Act, Parliamentary Papers, 1 (1907), p. 797. 89 Parliamentary Debates (14 June 1907), cols. 41-42. 90 Ibid., col. 55. 91 Ibid., col. 58. 92 McKenna, Burns, Morley, and Sir Henry Fowler were present and voted against. Among the junior members of the Government who voted against were: Samuel, Lough, Runciman, Pease, Lewis, Norton, Shaw, Causton, and Robson. 93 The Bill was supposed to come up for third reading on the Monday following, i.e., 17 June. One must therefore assume that Govern• ment intervention came,on the weekend of 15 to 16 June. 94 It became Clause 13 after the Bill was amended by the Standing Committee. 95 Parliamentary Debates (31 July 1907), cols. 1097-99. 96 See especially the speech of J. D. Rees for his part in the discussion of this point on all three occasions. See ibid., cols. 925- 27. 97 Ibid. (21 August 1907), col. 727. 98 The Charity Organization Society was partly responsible for this clamour. For an example of their protests see Sir Arthur Clay, "The Feeding of School Children," in J. St. Loe Strachey, ed., The Manu• facture of Paupers: A Protest and a Policy (London, 1907). Articles in this series appeared in the Spectator between May,and July of 1906. At that time Strachey.was its editor. Clay was an important figure with the COS. 99 Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance m Great Britain, pp. 117-18, has attributed the Bill's quiet passage to an "administrative- political trick" on the part of Robert Morant. The prime consideration on which Gilbert's contention .is built appears to be the recollection of 204

Sir Lawrence Brock as expressed to Violet Markham over a decade after the fact. According to Brock, Morant knew: "but did not tell his Minister, that medical inspection would reveal such a mass of disease that no Government subsequently would be able to resist the demand of the Local Education Authorities to provide treatment. Morant told me himself that he foresaw what would happed and meant it to happen because without the horrifying results of inspection there was no chance for a Bill authorizing treatment" (see Violet Markham, Friendship's Harvest [London, 1956], pp. 200-201). To go along with Gilbert's interpretation one must not only assume, as Gilbert does, that Birrell's replacement at the Board of Education, Reginald McKenna, was an "unimaginative minister, who knew nothing of education, whose talent, whose interest, and whose best work would be entirely in the area of finance, and who had no understanding of the implications of school medical inspection" (see Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, p. 128); but also that neither members of the Government nor the House had any idea where medical inspection would necessarily lead them.

100 Allen's biography of Morant is quite inadequate for any realistic assessment of Morant's role in the development of school health programmes. Beyond Brock's statement Violet Markham is not very helpful. Though Gilbert has apparently examined the Board of Education Papers at length, his study does not portray Morant's role in any depth.

See S. and V. Leff, The School Health Service (London, 1959), p. 61. 205

CONCLUSION

The period of the Boer war was a watershed in more ways than one.

Not only did it see the end of the longest reign in modern times and the

arrival of a new century, but it represented the culmination of the

nineteenth-century reaction against Benthamism, Evangelicism and Laissez-

faire economics. Social,legislation thereafter was to be governed not

by any Christian duty .or theory.of demoralization but by the principle of

the needs of the State.

To suggest that, socialists or.groups representing working-class

interests were ultimately responsible for the enactment of legislation

to ensure the health and welfare of working-class children is to con•

tinue the myth that such social legislation merely evolved. Such a sug•

gestion fails to take into consideration the time-lag between the point

when the condition of working-class children was identified by the middle

class and by Parliament as being intolerable, and the time when the

Liberal administration of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman did something

about the problem.

The "Condition of England" question waxed and waned during the

nineteenth century along with the political fortunes of the Whig and Tory

Parties and the economic success of the nation. In the 1880's the ques•

tion took on larger dimensions than ever before. Readers of the perio•

dical press of the 1880's and the 1900's cannot help but notice the

similarity that exists between the articles that appeared in both periods

in the selection of subject matter, the approach used, and the objective

intended. Child health was, as much a topic of concern for middle-class 206 late-Victorians as it was for.middle-class Edwardians. For both groups the physical condition of.the working classes was an overriding concern.

Yet major government action to ameliorate the working class and their children only began in the first decade of the twentieth century. Such a delay can only be explained by one or more of the following: (i) though the middle class were concerned about the condition of the working class they had no will to do anything about it; (ii) concern generated during the 1880's was only of a local nature and was therefore insufficient to bring about national legislation;, (iii) during the 1880's the moral code implicit in the Poor Law .was still strong enough to prevent any social action which was philosophically contradictory to it; and (iv) the 1890's were responsible, for defusing the issues which created the social crisis of the 1880's. 1 2 Beatrice Webb's diary, the success of the Lord Mayor's appeal, and the flood of graduates participating in the university settlement movement all suggest that the late-Victorian middle class were not lack• ing in either the desire.or the will to do something personally to improve the condition of the working class. Though Gareth Stedman Jones' work suggests that the problem of the casual poor and London were synony• mous, this was not the case. An examination of the press immediately after the Trafalgar Square riot of 1886 shows that the casual poor were 3 a pressing problem for a number of provincial cities. Nevertheless, while groups of casual poor may have been of concern to particular middle-class urban, communities, the casual poor as an entity in itself 4 was seldom seen as a national problem. The passage of the Medical 207

Relief (Disqualification Removal) Act in 1885 and Chamberlain's Local

Government Board Circular of 1886 both clearly indicate that politicians were .quite prepared to overrule Poor Law principles when they thought

the situation warranted it.

It has been argued in this thesis that the 1890's were a period

in which the major elements responsible for creating the social crisis

of the 1880's were defused. Nevertheless, the fact that economic condi•

tions changed for the better, and thus tended to defuse the crisis, does

not explain the success of the National Efficiency movement after 1900.

This success appears to have.depended on a new crisis. At the bottom

of this crisis.were.the British military failures in southern Africa in

1899. These were responsible for jolting the British public out of

their complacency and for. turning attention inward on to the social con•

ditions of the British-working class.

This moment of self-analysis came at a very propitious time for

the advocates of social reform. Economic competition between Britain

and her European rivals for markets -on the Continent and further afield

had become intense.. Trade figures showed rapid advances for the United

States of America and several. European countries, particularly Germany.

With the population gap between Germany and Britain now showing signs of

widening rapidly in Germany's favour, many in Britain now began to fear

that her industrial capacity might be caught up if not positively over•

hauled. Prior to the redresses suffered at the hands of the Boers few

in Britain, despite the well-publicized lessons of the Franco-Prussian

war, had worried about Britain's ability to fight a European land war. 208

The stark realization brought home to the British by the Boer war that her volunteer army, was no bigger than that of a minor power,^ and that the physical strength of her reserves and reinforcements left much to be desired, was responsible for changing all this. Suddenly, it appeared, the British found themselves alone and vulnerable. All this occurred at a point in time when traditional political parties were either out of favour with the electorate.or lacking widespread popular support. The

Unionist leadership had lost the people's confidence: the Liberal Party was in complete disarray, and the Labour Party was as yet hardly born.

This set of circumstances allowed what might otherwise have been a brief and muffled outburst on .the part of Lord Rosebery at a distant Scottish university to echo like a cannon going off in the nation's capital. In this way a wide variety of people, of differing political philosophies and-diverse vested interests, found themselves bound together by a common fate, their illusions and self-confidence shattered. Compelled to over• come their differences, they joined forces in defence of the nation and her empire.

The common bond and sense of urgency that this mood engendered found outward expression in the movement for National Efficiency. The campaign which stemmed from this movement challenged the remaining ele• ments, of Gladstonian Liberalism and ensured that thereafter business principles and scientific reasoning would play a critical r6le in the administration of Britain. In no area were these two new guiding forces more strongly felt than over the question of whether the British race was physically deteriorating. Britain, it was now claimed, could no 209

longer afford to water its horses better than it looked after its labour

force.

The School Meals Act of 1906 and the Administrative Provisions

Act of 1907 were but two of several legislative measures adopted to

secure a more physically efficient labour force. In terms of Government

growth the two Acts had different impacts. At the local level the School

Meals Act allowed authorities to provide meals as and when they desired.

In consequence the number of local authorities setting up a special

bureaucracy to deal with this provision was very limited in the immed•

iate years following the Bill's enactment. At the central level hardly

any effect was felt.. By contrast the impact of the Administrative Pro•

visions Act was both, immediate and considerable. The Board of Education

found it necessary to appoint a special medical department under the

leadership of Dr. George Newman to advise and assist local authorities

and to ensure that the Act was carried out. At the local level each

school board was forced to employ a medical staff to carry out the re•

quirements of the Act. In this way there came into existence Britain's

first national, unified health service independent of the restrictions

of the Poor Law. When the time came to set up a Ministry of Health

after the First World War it was only natural that the experience gained

by Morant and Newman in setting up a medical department at the Board of

Education should be called upon again.

By concentrating on the preparation of legislation which allowed

needy children to be fed free of charge at the State's expense and to

make it compulsory for all local education authorities to inspect 210 medically all elementary school children in their charge, this thesis has illustrated four important points. First, the belief that Britain might be losing her imperial, industrial, and military supremacy was a

very real fear for a large section of British society. This fear was of

sufficient magnitude.to overcome well-established modes of thought and

well-tried social yardsticks like the moral code implicit in the Poor

Law. Second, the discussions in both Houses of Parliament of the Pro•

vision of meals and medical inspections for school children clearly

reflected that social standards of large sections of the upper and middle

classes had gone through rapid changes since the closing years of the

nineteenth century. There was.no longer any question of whether the

State should intervene. Now the only question facing MP's was which

Department of State should be asked to cover the cost. Third, the

nature of the Acts themselves, providing one accepts the argument set

out in this thesis that they were primarily pragmatic responses to

events and intended as methods of improving Britain's industrial and

military efficiency, clearly substantiates the claim that the National

Efficiency movement was responsible for inaugurating an element of long-

term planning into the process of.social policy formation. Fourth,

there seems little doubt that the two Acts reflected, a rise in status

of working-class children. In fact, such a rise in status appears more

obvious when the full implications of the 1902 Midwives Act and the

"Children's Charter", of 1908 are also taken into consideration. Never•

theless, such a point of view may be misleading because it does not go

far enough. If, as has been argued, the real instruments of causation 211 were not compassionate or humanitarian instincts but rather the

National Efficiency movement and the fear that the physical condition of the British race was deteriorating, it seems fair to conclude that the

Education (School Meals) Act of 1906 and the Education (Administrative

Provisions) Act of 1907, besides being pragmatic responses to urgent needs and representing examples of long-term social planning, also heralded a clear legislative warning that the status of the working class had risen to new heights on the social scale. 212

FOOTNOTES

x Beatrice Webb writes on the "consciousness of sin" being the starting point of progress: see My Apprenticeship (London, 1971), pp. 191-92. She states: "The origin of this ferment is to be discovered in a new consciousness of sin among men of intellect and men of property; a consciousness, at first philanthropic and practical—Oastler, Shaftesbury, and Chadwick; then literary and artistic—Dickens, Carlyle, Ruskin and William Morris; and finally, analytic, historical and explanatory—in his latter days John Stuart Mill; Karl Marx and his English interpreters; Alfred Russell Wallace and Henry George; Arnold Toynbee and the Fabians. I might perhaps add a theological category—-Charles^ Kingsley, F. D. Maurice, General Booth and Cardinal Manning. 'The sense of sin has been the starting-point of progress' was, during these years, the oft- repeated saying of Samuel Barnett, rector of St. Jude's Whitechapel, and founder of Toynbee Hall." 2 For details on the success of the Lord Mayor's Fund see B. B. Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, The Origins of the Welfare State (London, 1973), p. 36. 3 See, for example, The Saturday Review of 20 February 1886. It stated: "The London riots threatened, continuance for days. Leicester has been for the past week in a modified state of siege—a severe punish• ment even for the most radical town in England . . . There have been riots in Great Yarmouth. The bank clerks at Birmingham have worked like modern copies of the ancient Israelites, with the revolver in one hand and the gold-shovel in the other. Collections of really or nominally unemployed men have, informed the Mayor of Sheffield significantly that they 'don't want to follow' the example of London and Leicester. 'The Riots' has become a standard heading of the newspapers, like 'Police Report' or 'The Market.' Nothing of the kind, nothing even distantly ap• proaching it, has been known in England for more than a generation it 4 The exceptions to the rule, as the thesis has indicated, were such social imperialists as Arnold White. 5 This fact had been pointed out as early as 1887: see Dilke's estimate, for example, in his book, The Present Position of European Politics (1887), p. 306. He stated that Britain: "could place in the field in Europe a force about equal to that of Servia." Cited by G. R. Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency, A Study in British Politics and Political Thought, 1899-1914 (Oxford, 1971), p. 6. 213

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

1. Newspapers

The Times

Manchester Guardian

2. Weeklies

Punch

Saturday Review

Spectator -

3. Monthlies and Other Periodicals

Contemporary Review

Fortnightly Review

Monthly Review

National Review

Nineteenth Century and Nineteenth Century and After

North American Review

Quarterly Review

Westminster Review

4. Medical Press

British Medical Journal

Lancet

5. Published Government Documents 214

Great Britain. Parliament. Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser.

. Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser.

,.' Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Chief Medical Officer to

the Board of Education."

1908. Cd. 4986.

1909. Cd. 5426.

1910. Cd. 5926.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Medical Officer to the Local Government Board." 1899-•1900. Cd. 299.

1900-•1901. Cd. 747.

1901-•1902. Cd. 1344.

1902-•1903. Cd. 2213.

1903-•1904. Cd. 2611.

1904-•1905. Cd. 3100.

1905-•1906. Cd. 3656.

1906-•1907. Cd. 4289.

1907-•1908. Cd. 4634.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Inspector General of Re• cruiting." 1901 and 1902. Cd. 2176.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Memorandum of the Director-General of the Army Medical Service on the Physical Unfitness of Men Offering Themselves for Enlistment in the Army." 1903. Cd. 1501.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Inter-departmental Com• mittee on Physical Deterioration." 1904.

Vol. 1, Report and Appendix, Cd. 2175.

Vol. 2, List of Witnesses and Minutes of Evidence, Cd. 2210.

Vol. 3, Appendices and Index, Cd. 2186. 215

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Committee of Children Under Five Years of Age in Public Elementary Schools," 1905, Cd. 2726.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Interdepartmental Com• mittee on the Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children At• tending Public.Elementary Schools," 1905.

Vol. 1, Report, Cd. 2779.

Vol. 2, Minutes of Evidence, Cd. 2784.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill 1906 and the Education (Provision of Meals) of Scotland Bill," 1906, Cd. 288.

_. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Teaching of School and Personal Hygiene to Students in Training as Teachers in Scotland," 1907, Cd. 3443.

•. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Committee on School At• tendance of Children Below the Age of Five," 1908, Cd. 4259.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Over-pressure of Work in Public Elementary Schools," 1884, C. 4268.

_. Parliamentary Papers, "Memorandum on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade" (1908), 321.

. Parliamentary Papers, "Report of the Medical Officer to the

Privy Council."

1862.

1863. . Parliamentary .Papers, "Annual Report of the Poor Law Board."

1866.

1866-1867.

. Report of Commissioners, "Royal Commission on the Employment of Children in Trades and Manufacturers not already Regulated by Law."

1863. Cd. 3170.

1864. Cd. 3414.

1865. Cd. 3548. 216

1866. Cd. 3678.

1867. Cd. 3796.

Report of Commissioners. "Royal Commission on the Employment of Children, Young Persons and Women in Agriculture,"

1868. Cd. 4068.

1869. Cd. 4202.

1870. Cd. 4070.

1870. Cd. 4221.

Report of Commissioners. "Royal Commission on Physical Train- ing Scotland," 1903.

Vol. 1, Report, Cd. 1507.

Vol. 2, Minutes of Evidence, Cd. 1508.

6. Local Government Documents

London County Council. Annual Reports of the Medical Officer (Education). (1904-1910).

. "Home Circumstances of 'Necessitous' Children' in Twelve Selected Schools," Report by the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Underfed Children and the Education Officer (#1203) (1908).

. Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, 1904-5 (1905).

7. Documents of International Organizations

United Nations. World Health Organization. Nutrition and Infection: Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Technical Report Series, no. 314, 1965.

International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children. Physical Efficiency in Children: Report of the Congress for the Wel• fare and Protection of Children (1902).

Second International Congress on. School Hygiene. Transactions (1907).

8. Documents of Miscellaneous Committees 217

British Association for the Advancement of Science. Final Report of the Anthropometric.Committee of the British Association for the Advance• ment of Science (1883).

Committee on the Mental and Physical Condition of Children. Report on the Mental and Physical Conditions of Childhood (1895).

Edinburgh Charity Organization Society. Report on the Physical Condition of Fourteen Hundred School Children in the City (1906).

Statistical Society of London. Third Report from the Committee to Inquire into the Statistics Available as the Basis for Estimating the Production of Meat and Milk in the United Kingdom, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 67 (1904), 385-412.

. Report of the Committee of the Statistical Society of London on the State of the Working Classes in the Parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 3 (1840), 14-24.

9. Contemporary Books

Amery,. L. S., ed. The Times History of the War in South Africa, 1899- 1900, I. London, 1900.

Arnold, M. Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Cri• ticism. Edited by J. D. Wilson. London, 1969.

Atkins, J. B. National Physical Training: An Open Debate. London, 1904.

Booth, C. Labour and Life of the People of London. Vols. 1 and 2. London, 1891.

Bray, R. A. The Town Child. London, 1907.

Clarke Hall,.W. The Queen's Reign for Children. London, 1897.

Dawson, W. H. Bismark and State Socialism, An Exposition of the Social and Economic Legislation of Germany, Since 1870. London, 1891.

Dukes, C. Health at School Considered in its Mental, Moral and Physical Aspects. London, 1905.

Greville, F. E., Countess of Warwick. A Nation's Youth: Physical Deteri• oration: Its Causes and Some Remedies. London, 1906.

Gorst, Sir J. E. The Children of the Nation: How Their Health and Vigour Should Be Promoted By the State. London, 1906. 218

Horsfall, T. C. The Example of Germany: The Improvement of the Dwellings and Surroundings of the People. Manchester, 1901.

Lewellyn Heath, H. The Infant, the Parent and the State: A Social Study and Review. London, 1907.

Mearns, A. The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Inquiry into the Condi• tion of the Abject Poor. London, 1883.

MacKenzie, W. L. The Medical Inspection of School Children. Edinburgh, 1904.

. The Health of the School Child. London, 1907.

McMillan, M. Labour and Childhood. London, 1907.

Magnus, L., ed. National Education: A Symposium. London, 1901.

Meakin, B. Model Factories and Villages. London, 1905.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Oskar Piest. New York, 1957.

. The Principles of Political Economy. Edited by DonaldWinch. London, 1970.

The Six Great Humanistic Essays of John Stuart Mill. Edited

by A. Levi. New York, 1963.

Newman, Sir G. Infant Mortality. London, 1906.

Health and the State. London, 1907 Newsholme, Sir A., and W. C,. G. Pakes. School Hygiene: The Laws of Health in Relation to School Life. London, 1904.

Pearson, K. National Life from the Standpoint of Science. London, 1905.

. The Chances of Death and Other Studies in Evolution. Vol. I. London, 1897.

Rowntree, B. S. Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London, 1901.

Seeley, J. R. The Expansion of England. Edited by John Gross. London, 1971.

Shadwell, A. Industrial Efficiency: A Comparative Study of Industrial Life in England and Germany and America. London, 1906. 219

Smith, E. Health and Disease as Influenced by Daily, Seasonal, and Other Cyclical Changes in the Human System. London, 1861.

. Practical Dietary for Families, School, and the Labouring Classes. London, 1864.

Foods. London, 1873.

Spencer, H. The Man Versus the State. Edited by D. MacRae. London, 1969.

Steed, W. T., ed. Coming Men on Coming Questions. London, 1905.

Strachey, J. St. L., ed. The Manufacture of Paupers: A Protest and a Policy. London, 1906.

Tuckwell, G. The State and Its Children. London, 1894.

Warner, F. The Study of Children and Their School Training. London, 1898.

Watt Smyth, A. Physical Deterioration: Its Causes and the Cure. London, 1904.

White, A. Efficiency and Empire. London, 1901.

10. Contemporary Articles

Anson, Sir W. A. "Provision of Food for School Children in Public Ele• mentary Schools . " Economic Journal 16 (June 1906):181-88.

Argyll, Duke of. "National Defence: A Civilian's Impression," Nineteenth Century and After 58 (July 1905):62-66.

Balmforth, R. "Darwinism and Empire." Westminster Review 158 (July 1902) .-1-13.

Barnett, Cannon S. "Practical Socialism." Nineteenth Century 13 (April 1883):554-60.

Barnett, Mrs. S. "The Beginning of Toynbee Hall—A Reminiscence." Nine• teenth Century and After 53 (February 1903):306-14.

Barrow, F. H. "Free Meals for Underfed Children." Monthly Review 19 (May 1905):1-16.

Bashford, J. L. "The German Army System and How it Works." Nineteenth Century and After 56 (October 1904):606-21. 220

Birchenough, Sir H. "Compulsory Education and Compulsory Military Train• ing." Nineteenth Century and After 56 (July 1904):20-27.

Bland, H. "After Bread Education: A Plan for the State Feeding of School Children." Fabian Tract 120 (April 1905):1-15.

Booth, C. "Occupations of the United Kingdom 1801-1881." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 49 (June 1886):314-435.

. "The Inhabitants of Tower Hamlets (School Board Division) Their Condition and Occupation." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 50 (June 1887):326-91.

. "The Condition and Occupations of the People in East London and Hackney, 1887." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 51 (June 1888):276-331.

. "Life and Labour of the People in London: The First Results of an Inquiry Based on the 1891 Census." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 56 (December 1893):557-93.

Bosanquet, Mrs. B. "Physical Deterioration and the Poverty Line." Contemporary Review 85 (January 1904):65-75.

Brabazon, Lord. "Health and Physique of Great City Populations." Nine• teenth Century 10 (July 1881):80-89.

. "Great Cities and Social Reform." Nineteenth Century 14 (November 1883):798-803.

"State-Directed. Colonization: Its Necessity." Nineteenth Century 16 (November 1884):764-87.

. "The Decay of Bodily Strength in Towns." Nineteenth Century 21 (May 1887):673-76.

Brunton, Sir.L. "National League for Physical Education and Improvement." National Review 44 (November 1904):489-98.

Buxton, S. "Over-pressure." Nineteenth Century 16 (November 1884): 806-25.

Clay, A. F. T. "Free Meals for Underfed Children: A Means to an End—A Reply." Monthly Review 20 (July 1905):94-104.

Crawford, R. F. "Notes on the Food Supply of the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 62 (December 1899):597-629.

Davies, M. "Physical Deterioration and the Teaching of Cookery." Con• temporary Review 87 (January 1905):88-94. 221

Davies, M. "The Feeding of School Children and The Cookery Classes." Contemporary Review 87 (April 1905):564-69.

Denyer, C. H. "Feeding of School Children at Public Expense: Summary of Official Reports." Economic Journal 16 (December 1906):617-22.

Dudfield, R. "A History of the Medical Officers of Health Society." Public Health 50 (1906):198ff.

Earle, M. T. "The Feeding of the Young." National Review 43 (July 1904):793-97.

Gorst, Sir J. E. "Children" Rights." National Review 65 (June 1905): 705-15.

. "Social Reform: The Obligation of the Tory Party." Nineteenth Century 53 (March 1903):519-32.

. "Governments and Social Reform." Fortnightly Review, New ser. 77 (May 1905):843-55.

. "Physical Deterioration in Britain." North American Review 184 (July 1905):1-10.

. "Mr. Chamberlain's Proposals." North American Review 161 (August 1903):161-71.

Graves, A. P. "Physical Education in Primary Schools." Contemporary Review 85 (June 1904):888-98.

Griffen, R. A. "Further Progress of the Working Classes." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 49 (March 1886):28-91.

Haig, Dr. A. "The True Cause of Physical Deterioration." National Review 44 (December 1904):697-700.

Hamer-Jackson, Mrs. C. "Prevention of Infantile Mortality by help Ex• tended to the Expectant Mother." Journal of the Royal Sanitary In• stitute 25 (1904):431-33.

Honeyman, J. "Sir John Gorst and Poor Law Reform." Westminster Review 161 (June 1904):648-52.

Hookham, G. "Free Meals for School Children—A Birmingham Experiment." National Review 44 (December 1904):718-30.

Hunter, R. "Social Significance of Underfed Children." International Quarterly 12 (January 1906):330-49. 222

Jackson, C. "Housekeeping and National Weil-Being." Nineteenth Century and After 58 (August 1905):298-305.

Kerr, Dr. J. "School Hygiene, in its Mental, Moral and Physical Aspects." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 60 (September 1897):613-80.

Loch, C. S. "Statistics of Population and Pauperism in England and Wales, 1861-1901." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 69 (June 1906):289-312.

Longstaff, G. B. "Recent Decline in the English Death-rate Considered in Connection with.the Cause of Death." Journal of the Royal Statis• tical Society 47 (June 1884):221-58.

. "Rural Depopulation." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 56 (September 1893):380-433.

McGregor, Dr. J. M. "Medical Inspection of School Children." Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute 25 (1904):412-20.

MacNamara,, Dr. T. J. "In Corpore Sano." Contemporary Review 87 (February 1905) :238-48.

. "The Physical Condition of Working-class Children." Nine• teenth Century and After 54 (August 1904):307-11.

Maurice, Major-general Sir J. F. "National Health: A Soldier's Study." Contemporary Review 83 (January 1903):41-56.

(Miles). "Where to Get Men." Contemporary Review 82 (January 1902):78-86.

Morris. M. "The Progress of Medicine During the Queen's Reign." Nine• teenth Century 41 (May 1897):739-58.

Mouat, F. J. "The History of the Statistical Society of London." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 50 (Supplement 1887).

Neild, W. "Comparative Statement of the Income and Expenditure of Cer• tain Families of the Working Classes in Manchester and Dukinfield in the years 1836 and 1841." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 4 (January 1841):320-34.

Newsholme, A., and T. H. C. Stevenson. "The Decline of Human Fertility in the United Kingdom and Other Countries as Shown by Corrected Birth-rates." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 69 (March 1906) :34-87.

O'Brian, M. D. "Child and the Home." Westminster Review (June 1906): 668-75. 223

Ogle, W. "On Marriage-rates and Marriage with Special Reference to the Growing Population." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 53 (June 1890):253-80.

. "Alleged Depopulation of Rural Districts of England." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52 (June 1889):205-32.

Ravenstein, E. G. "The Laws of Migration." Journal of the Royal Sta• tistical Society 48 (June 1885):167-227.

. "The Laws of Migration." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52 (June 1889):241-301.

Rew, R. H. "An Inquiry into the Statistics of the Production and Con• sumption of Milk and Milk Products in Great Britain." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 55 (June 1892):244-45.

Rumsey, H. "On the Progressive Physical Degeneracy of Race in Town Popu• lations of Great Britain." Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (Leeds 1871):466-72.

Shee, G. F. "The Physical Deterioration in National Physique." Nine• teenth Century and After 53 (May 1903):797-805.

Simmons, General Sir J. L. A. "The Critical Condition of the Army." Nineteenth Century 14 (February 1883):165-88.

"Weakness of the Army." Nineteenth Century 15 (March 1883): 529-44.

Smith, S. "The Industrial Training of Destitute Children." Contemporary Review 47 (January 1885):107-19.

Templeman, C. "Infant Mortality: Its Causes and Prevention." Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute 25 (1904):434-35.

Tuke, J. H. "State Aid to Emigrants—A Reply to Lord Brabazon." Nine• teenth Century 17 (February 1885):280-96.

Ule, G. U. "On the Changes in the. Marriage and Birth-rates in England and Wales During the Past Half-century." Journal of the Royal Sta• tistical Society 69 (March 1906):88-132.

Warner, Dr. F. "Mental and Physical Conditions among 50,000 Children Seen 1892-94 and Methods of Studying Recorded Observations, with Special Reference to the Determination of Causes of Mental Dullness and Other Defects." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 59 (March 1896):125-62. 224

Warner, Dr. F. "A Method of Examining Children in Schools as to their Development and Brain Condition." British Medical Journal (1 Sep• tember 1888):483.

. "Report of Investigation in 14 Schools in London to be Pre• sented to the Committee Appointed by the Psychology Section of the BMA." British Medical Journal (27 July 1889) :187.

. "Results of an Inquiry as to the Physical and Mental Condition of Fifty Thousand Children Seen in 106 Schools." , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 56 (Marcy 1893):71-95.

Webb, S. "Lord Rosebery's Escape from Houndsditch." Nineteenth Century and After 50 (September 1901):366-86.

. "Twentieth Century Politics: A Policy of National Efficiency." Fabian Tract 108 (November 1901):1-15.

. "The Decline in the Birth-rate." Fabian Tract 131 (March 1907):1-19.

Welton, T. A. "On the Distribution of Population in England and Wales: 1801-1891." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 63 (December 1900):527-89.

White, A. "The Cult of Infirmity." National Review 37 (October 1899): 236-45.

Wood, G. H. "Some Statistics Relating to Working Class Progress Since 1860." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 62 (December 1899): 639-66.

11. Novels, Plays, etc.

Dickens, C. Dealings with the .Firm of Dinbey and Son: Wholesale, Retail, and for Exportation. Edited by Peter Fairclough. London, 1974.

Gaskell, E. Mary Barton: A Tale of Manchester Life. Edited by Stephen Gill. London, 1972.

Shaw, G. B. Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy. London, 1962; reprinted ed.

Wells, H. G. The New Machievelli. London, 1970; reprinted ed. 225

B. SECONDARY SOURCES

1. General Secondary Sources

Abrams, M. Social Surveys and Social Action. London, 1951.

Abrams, P. The Origins of British Sociology, 1834-1914. Chicago, 1968.

Armytage, W. H. G. The German Influence on English Education. London, 1969.

Beales, H. L. "The Making of Social Policy in the Nineteenth Century." L. T. Hobhouse Memorial Trust Lecture 15. London, 1946.

Best, G. Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-1875. London, 1971.

Black, E. Victorian Culture and Society. New York, 1974.

Bosanquet, H. Social Work in London, 1869-1912: A History of the C.O.S. London, 1914.

Briggs, A. Victorian Cities. London, 1971.

Briggs, A., and J. Saville. Essays in Labour History. London, 1960.

Bruce, M. The Coming of- the Welfare State. London, 1972.

. The Rise of the Welfare State, English Social Policy, 1601-

1971. London, 1973.

Burnett, J. A History of the Cost of Living. London, 1969.

Cipolla, C. M., ed. Fontana Economic History of Europe. London, 1970. Cole, G. D. H., and R. Postgate. The Common People, 1746-1946. London, 1968.

De Schwienitz, K. England's. Road to Social Security From the Statute of Labourers in 1349 to the Beveridge Report of 1942. New York, 1961.

Enser, Sir R. C. K. England, 1870-1914. London, 1966.

Ford, P. Social Theory and Social Practice, An Exploration of Experience. Shannon, 1968.

Fraser, D. The Evolution of the British Welfare State: A History of Social Policy Since the Industrial Revolution. London, 1973.

George, V. Social Security and Society. London, 1973. 226

Gilbert, B. B. The Evolution of National Insurance,.in Great Britain: The Origins of the Welfare State. London, 1973.

Ginsberg, M., ed. Law and Public Opinion in England.in the Twentieth Century. London, 1959.

Gollwitzer, H. Europe in the Age of Imperialism: 1880-1914. London, 1969.

Hall, M. P. The Social Services of Modern England. London, 1953.

Halevy, E. England in 1815. London, 1924.

. A History of the English People, 4. London, 1951.

Harris, J. Unemployment. and Politics, A Study in English Social Policy, 1886-1914. London, 1972.

Harrison, J. F. C. The Early Victorians, 1832-1851. St. Albans, 1973.

Havighurst, A. F. Twentieth Century Britain. New York, 1966.

Heilbroner, R. L. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York, 1966.

Johns, E. A. The Social.Structure of Modern Britain. Oxford, 1965.

Kassalow, E., ed. The Role of Social Security in Economic Development. Washington, 1968.

Laver, J. D. The Age of Optimism: Manners and Morals, 1848-1914. London, 1966.

Lubove, R., ed. Social.Welfare in Transition, Selected Documents, 1834- 1909. Pittsburg, 1966.

Lowndes, G. A. N. The Silent Social Revolution: An Account of Public Education in England and Wales: 1895-1965. Oxford, 1969.

Lynd, H. M. England in the 1880's: Towards a Social Basis of Freedom. London, 1945.

MacLeod, R. M. Treasury Control and Social Administration, Occasional Papers on Social Administration, 23. London, 1968.

Magnus, Sir P. Education Aims and Efforts: 1880-1910. London, 1910.

Marsh, D. C. The Welfare State. London, 1970.

. An Introduction. to the Study of Social Administration. London, 1965. 227

Marder, A. J. From Dreadnaught to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904-1919.

Marshall, T. H. Class, Citizenship and Social Development. Garden City, 1964.

Martin, E. W. Comparative Development in Social Welfare. London, 1972.

Meneher, S. Poor Law to Poverty Program: Economic Security Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Pittsburg, 1967.

Monger, G. The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900-1907. London, 1963.

Mowat, C. L. The Charity Organization Society, 1869-1913. Its Ideas and Work. London, 1961.

Nowell-Smith, S., ed. Edwardian England, 1901-1914. London, 1964.

Owen, D. English Philanthropy, 1660-1960. Cambridge, 1964.

Pacey, L. M., ed. Readings in the Development of Settlement Work. New York, 1950.

Pelling, H. Modern Britain, 1885-1955. London, 1969.

Perkins, H. The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880. London, 1969.

Pimlott, J. A. R. Toynbee Hall: Fifty Years of Social Progress. London, 1935.

Pinker, R. Social Theory and Social Policy. London, 1971.

Pollard, S. The Idea of Progress: History and Society. London, 1971.

Price, R. An Imperial War and the British Working Class: Working Class Attitudes and Reactions to the Boer War, 1899-1902. London, 1972.

Robson, W. A. "The Welfare State." L. T. Hobhouse Memorial Trust Lec• ture 26. London, 1957.

Rimlinger, G. V. Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America, and Russia.

Roberts, D. Victorian Origins of the Welfare State. New Haven, 1960.

Rodgers, B. The Battle Against Poverty. 2 vols. London, 1968. 228

Roebuck, J. The Making of Modern. English Society from 1850. London, 1973.

Rooff, M. A. A Hundred Years of Family Welfare.. London, 1972.

Voluntary Societies and Social Policy. London, 1957.

Rose, M. E. The Relief of Poverty, 1834-1914. London, 1972.

Ryder, J., and H. Silver.. Modern English Society: History and Structure, 1850-1970. London, 1970.

Searle, G. R. The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Political Thought, 1899-1914. Oxford, 1970.

Semmel, B. Imperialism and Social Reform, English Social Thought, 1895- 1914. London, 1960.

Simon, B. Education and the Labour Movement, 1870-1920. London, 1965.

Slayter, G. Poverty and.the State. London, 1930.

Sleeman, J. F. The Welfare State: Its Aims Benefits and Costs. London, 1973.

Sutherland, G. Pol icy-Making in Elementary Education: 1870-1895. Oxford, 1973.

, ed. Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government. London, 1972.

Webb, S., and B. English Poor Law History, 2, The Last Hundred Years. London, 1929.

Wickwar, H. The Social Services: A Historical Survey. London, 1936.

Wood, A. The Nineteenth Century, 1815-1914. London, 1960.

Woodward, Sir L. The Age of Reform, 1815-1870. London, 1962.

Young, A. F., and E. T. Ashton. British Social Work in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1956.

Zald, M. N. Social Welfare, .Institutions: Sociological Reader. New York, 1965.

2. General Economic Histories

Aldcroft, D. H. Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition, 1875-1914. London, 1968. 229

Aldcroft, D. H., and H. W. Richardson. The British Economy, 1870-1939. London, 1969.

Ashworth, W. An Economic History of England, 1870-1939. London, 1960.

Asquith, Lord. Industrial Problems and Disputes. London, 1920.

Bagwell, P. S., and G. E. Mingay. Britain and America, 1850-1939: A Study of Economic Change. London, 1970.

Cadbury, E. Experiments, in Industrial Organization. London, 1912.

Clopham, J. H. An Economic History of Modern Britain: Machines and National Rivalries, 1887-1914, with an Epilogue, 1914-1929. Cam• bridge, 1938.

Court, W. H. B., ed. British Economic History: 1870-1914: Commentary and Documents. London, 1965.

Flanders, A., and H. A. Clegg, eds. The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain: Its History, Law and Institutions. Oxford, 1956.

Hoffman, R. J. S. Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914. Philadelphia, 1933.

Hutchison, T. W. A Review of Economic Doctrines, 1870-1929. Oxford, 1966.

Landes, D. S. The Unbound.Prometheus: Technological Change and Indus• trial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cam• bridge, 1969.

Mathias, P. The First Industrial Nation, An Economic History of Great Britain. London, 1969.

Musgrave, P. W. Technical. Change, the Labour Force and Education: A Study of the British and German Iron and Steel Industries, 1860-1964. Oxford, 1967.

Phelps Brown, E. H., and M. E. Browne. A Century of Pay, 1860-1960. London, 1968.

Phelps Brown, E. H. The Growth of British Industrial Relations. London, 1960.

Pollard, S., and D. Crossley. The Wealth of Britain, 1085-1966. London, 1968.

Roseveare, H. The Treasury: The Evolution of a British Institution. London, 1969. 230

Rowntree, B. S. The Human Factor in Business. London, 1921.

Saul, S. B. The Myth of the Great Depression, 1873-1896. London, 1969.

Sayers, R. S. Economic Change in England, 1880-1939. London, 1967.

Tillett, A., T. Kempner, and G. Wills. Management Thinkers. London, 1964.

Urwick, L., and E. F. L. Brech. The Making of Scientific Management. 3 vols. London, 1964.

Williams, I. The Firm, of Cadbury, 1831-1931. London, 1931.

3. General Political Histories

Bealey, F., and H. Pelling. Labour Politics, 1900-1906. London, 1958.

Blake, R. The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill. London, 1972.

Bowie, J. Politics and Opinion in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1954. Eldridge, C. C. England's Mission: The Imperial Idea in the Age of Gladstone and Disraeli, 1868-1880. London, 1973.

Emy, H. V. Liberals, Radicals and Social Politics, 1892-1914. Cambridge, 1973.

Fraser, P. Joseph. Chamberlain, Radicalism and Empire, 1868-1914. London, 1966.

Hamer, D. A. Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery: A Study of Leadership and Policy. Oxford, 1972.

McBriar, A. M. Fabian Socialism and English Politics, 1884-1918. Cam• bridge, 1962.

Matthew, H. C. G. The Liberal Imperialists: The Ideas and Politics of the Post Gladstone Elite. Oxford, 1973.

Pease, E. R. The History of the Fabian Society. London, 1925.

Pelling, H. Popular Politics and Society in Late-Victorian Britain. London, 1968.

A History of British Trade Unionism. London, 1963.

. The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880-1900. London, 1966. 231

Smith, P. Disraelian Conservatism and Social Reform. London, 1967.

Stansky, P. Ambitions and Strategies: The Struggle for the Liberal Party in the 1890's. Oxford, 1964.

Vincent, J. The Formation of the British Liberal Party 1857-1868. Lon• don, 1972.

4. Sources Concerned with the Conditions of Family Life

Allen, A., and A. Morton. This is Your Child: The Story of the NSPCC. London, 1961.

Anderson, M. Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire. London, 1971.

Ashworth, W. The Genesis of Modern British Town Planning. London, 1954.

Banks, J. A. Prosperity and Parenthood: A Study of Family Planning Among the Victorian Middle Class. London, 1954.

Banks, 0. Feminism and Family Planning in Victorian England. Liverpool, 1964.

Chapman, S. D., ed. A History of Working-Class Housing: A Symposium. Newton Abbot, 1971.

Chesney, K. The Victorian Underworld. London, 1972.

Coleman, B. I., ed. The Idea of the City in Nineteenth-century Britain. London, 1973.

Dyos, H. J., and M. Wolff, eds. The Victorian City: Images and Realities. 2 vols. London, 1973.

Dyos, H. J. The Study of Urban History: The Proceedings of an Inter• national Round-table Conference of the Urban History Group (1966). London, .1968.

Fletcher, R. The Family and Marriage in Britain. London, 1966.

Fried, A., and R. M. Elman. Charles Booth's London. London, 1971.

Gosden, P. H. J. H. The Friendly Societies in England, 1815-1875. Man• chester, 1961.

. Self-help: Voluntary Associations in Great Britain. New York, 1974. 232

Hewitt, M. Wives and Mothers in Victorian England. London, 1958.

Himes, N. E. Medical History of Contraception. New York, 1963.

Hogben, L., ed. Political Arithmetic. London, 1938.

Hubback, E. M. The Population of Britain. London, 1947.

Innes., J. W. Class Fertility Trends in England and Wales, 1876-1934. Princeton, 1938.

Jackson, J. J. The Irish in Britain. London, 1963.

Johnstone, J. Wastage of Child Life: As Exemplified by Conditions in Lancashire. London, 1909.

Kennedy, R. E. The Irish, Emigration, Marriage and Fertility. Berkeley, 1973.

Pearsall, R. The Worm in the Bud: The World of Victorian Sexuality. London, 1969.

. Night's Black Angels: The Forms and Faces of Victorian Cruelty. London, 1975.

Pinchbeck, I. Women Workers and the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850. London, 1930.

Pinchbeck, I., and M. Hewitt. Children in English Society. 2 vols. London, 1973.

Roberts, R. The Classic Slum. London, 1971.

Saville, J. Rural Depopulation in England and Wales: 1861-1951. London, 1957.

Stedman Jones,, G. Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship Between Classes in Victorian Society. Oxford, 1971.

Tobias, J. J. Crime and the Industrial Society in the Nineteenth Cen• tury. London, 1967.

Vicinus, M., ed. Suffer and Be Still: Women in the Victorian Age. Bloomington, 1972.

Wrigley, E. A. Population in History. New York, 1969.

5. Sources Concerned with the History of Medicine 233

Brand, J. L. Doctors and the State: The British Medical Profession and Government Action in Public Health, 1870-1912. Baltimore, 1965.

Cooke, A. M. A History of the Royal College of Physicians of London. 3 vols. Oxford, 1972.

Flinn, M. W. Public.Health Reform in Britain. London, 1968.

Frazer, W. M. English Public Health, 1834-1939. London, 1950.

Gale, A. H. Epidemic Diseases. London, 1959.

Gibson, W. C., ed. British Contributions to Medical Science. London, 1971.

Honigsbaum, F. The Struggle for the Ministry of Health. Occasional Papers on Social Administration, 37. London, 1970.

Jones, K. A History of Mental Health Services. London, 1972.

Leff, S. The Health of the People. London, 1950.

Little, E. M. History of the British Medical Association, 1832-1932. London, 1932.

Longmate, N. Alive and Well: Medicine and Public Health, 1830 to the Present Day. London, 1970.

M'Gonigle, G. E. W., and J. Kirby. Poverty and Public Health. London, 1936.

McLeary, G. F. The Maternity and Child Welfare Movement. London, 1935.

. The Early History of the Infant Welfare Movement. London,

1933.

McKeown, T. Medicine in Modern Society. London, 1965.

. An Introduction to Social Medicine. Oxford, 1966. McLachlan, G., and T..McKeown. Medical History and Medical Care: A Sym• posium of Perspectives. London, 1971.

Newman, Sir G. Health and Social Evolution. London, 1931.

. The Building of the Nation's Health. London, 1939.

Newsholme, Sir A. The Ministry of Health. London, 1925.

. The Last Thirty Years in Public Health. London, 1936. 234

Poynter, F. N. L., ed. The Evolution of Medical Practice in Britain. London, 1961.

. Medicine and Science in the 1860's: Proceedings of the 6th

British Congress on the History of Medicine. London, 1968.

Sand, R. The. Advance of Social Medicine. London, 1952.

Swinson, A. The History of Public Health. Exeter, 1965. Vaughan, P. Doctor's Commons, A Short History of the British Medical Association. London, 1959.

6. Sources Concerned with Victorian Thought and Ideas

Altick, R. Victorian People and Ideas. New York, 1973.

. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Read• ing Public, 1800-1900. Chicago, 1967.

British Broadcasting Corporation. Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians. London, 1949.

Copleston, F. A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy, Bentham to Russell. New York, 1967.

Crowther, M. A. Church Embattled Religious Controversy in Mid-Victorian England. Newton Abbot, 1970.

Curtis, M., ed. The Great Political Theories. New York, 1965.

Hearnshaw, F. J. C., ed. The Social and Political Ideas of Some Represen• tative Thinkers of the Victorian Age. London, 1933.

Houghton, W. E. The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870. New Haven, 1957.

Playne, C. E. The Pre-war Mind in Britain: An Historical Review. Lon• don, 1928.

Richter, M. The Politics of Conscience: T. H. Green and His Age. Cam• bridge, 1964.

Robson, R. Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain: Essays in Honour of George Kitson Clark. London, 1967.

Schapiro, J. S. Liberalism: Its Meaning and History. Princeton, 1958.

Somervell, D. C. English Thought in the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1965. 235

Williams, R. Culture and Society, 1780-1950. London, 1966.

The Long Revolution. London, 1961.

7. Articles in Journals

Andrews, L. "The School Meals Service." British Journal of Educational Studies 20 (February 1972):70-75.

Ashworth, W. "British Industrial Villages in the Nineteenth Century." Economic History Review n.s. 3 (1950):378-87.

Bailward, W. A. "Some Recent Developments of Poor Relief." Economic Journal 22 (December 1912):542-53.

Banks, J. A. "Population Changes and the Victorian City." Victorian Studies 11 (March 1968):277-89.

Beaver, M. W. "Population, Infant Mortality and Milk." Population Studies 26 (July 1973):243-54.

Benjamin, B. "The Urban Background to Public Health Changes in England and Wales, 1900-1950." Population Studies (March 1964):225-48.

Blackman, J. "The Food, Supply of an Industrial Town: A Study of Shef• field's Public Markets, 1780-1900." Business History 5 (June 1963): 83-97.

Bowley, A. L. "Death-rates, Density, Population and Housing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 86 (July 1923):516-39.

. "Rural Population in England and Wales: A Study in the Changes of Density, Occupations and Ages." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 77 (May 1914):597-645.

Brebner, J. B. "Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth- Century Britain." Journal of Economic History 8 (Supplement 1948): 59-73.

Briggs, A. "The Victorian City: Quantity and Quality." Victorian Studies 11 (Summer 1968):711-30.

.; "The Welfare State in Historical Perspective." European Journal of Sociology 2 (1961):221-58.

Brown, J. "Charles Booth and Labour Colonies, 1889-1905." Economic History Review, pp. 349-60.

Brown, J. B. "The Pig and the Stye: Drink and Poverty in Late Victorian 236

England." International Review of Social History 18 (1973):380-95.

Cadbury, E. "Some Principles of Industrial Organization: The Case Against Scientific Management." Sociological Review 7 (April 1914): 99-117.

Checkland, S. G. "Growth.and Progress: The Nineteenth Century View of Britain." Economic History Review, n.s. 12 (1959):49-62.

Cox, A. "General Practice Fifty Years Ago: Some Reminiscences." British Medical Journal (7 January 1950):77-78.

Daley, A., and B. Benjamin. "London as a Case Study." Population Studies 17 (March 1964):249-62.

Dingle, A. E. "Drink and Working-class Living Standards, 1870-1914." Economic History Review, n.s. 25 (1972):608-22.

Dyos, H. J. "The Slums of London." Victorian Studies 11 (September 1967):5-40.

Ferguson, T. "Public Health in Britain in the Climate of the Nineteenth Century." Population Studies 17 (March 1964):213-24.

Friedlander, D.and R. J. Roshier. "A Study of Internal Migration in England and Wales, pt. I, 1851-1951." Population Studies 19 (March 1966):239-79.

Friedlander, D. "The Spread.of Urbanization in England and Wales, 1851- 1951." Population Studies 24 (November 1970):423-43.

Gale, A. H. "A Century of Changes in Mortality and Incidence of the Principle Diseases of Childhood." Archives of Diseases of Childhood 20 (1945):2-21.

Gilbert, B. B. "Sir John Eldon Gorst and the Children of the Nation." Bulletin of the History of Medicine 28 (May-June 1954):243-51.

. "Health and Politics: The British Physical Deterioration Report of 1904." Bulletin of the History of Medicine 39 (March- April 1965):143-53.

Glass, D. V. "Some Indicators of Differences Between. Urban and Rural Mortality in England and Wales and Scotland." Population Studies 17 (March 1964):263-68.

Goldthorpe, J. R. "The Development of Social Policy in England, 1800- 1914: Notes on a Sociological Approach to a Problem in Historical Explanation." Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology 4 (2-8 September 1962):41-56. 237

Greenwood, M. "English Death-rates, Past, Present and. Future." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 99 (June 1936):674-707.

Harrison, B. "Philanthropy and the Victorians." Victorian Studies 9 (June 1964):353-74.

Hart, J. "Nineteenth-century Social Reform." Past and Present 31 (July 1965) :39-61.

Heasman, K. J. "The Medical Mission and the Care of the Sick Poor in Nineteenth Century England." Historical Journal 7 (1964):230-45.

Hobsbawm, E. J. "From Social History to the History of Society." Daedalus 100 (Winter 1971), 20-45.

Johnstone, R. W. "Fifty Years of Midwifery." British Medical Journal (7 January 1950):12-16.

Johnstone,; S. "The Health and Medical Treatment of the Uninsured." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 76 (March 1913):410-14.

Laslett, P. "Size and Structure of the Household in England over Three Centuries." Population Studies 23 (July 1969):199-233.

Logan, W. P. D. "Mortality in England and Wales from 1848-1947." Popu• lation Studies 4 (September 1950):132-78.

MaeDonagh, O. "The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: A Re• appraisal." Historical Journal 1 (1958):52-67.

MacLeod, R. M. "Law, Medicine and Public Opinion: The Resistance to Com• pulsory Health Legislation, 1870-1907." Public Law (Summer/Autumn 1967):107-28 and 189-211.

. "The Frustrations of State Medicine, 1880-1899." Medical History 2 (January 1967) .-15-40.

. "Social Policy and the 'Floating Population,' The Adminis• tration of the Canal Boats Act." Past and Present 35 (December 1966) :101-33.

. "Medico-legal Issues in Victorian Medical Care." Medical History 10 (January 1966):44-49.

MacNalty, Sir A. S. "Fifty Years in Public Health Legislation.". British Medical Journal (7 January 1950):48-53.

McGregor, 0. R. "Social Research and Social Policy." British Journal of Sociology 8 (1957):146-57. 238

McGregor, 0. R. "The Social Position of Women in England, 1850-1914: A Bibliography." British Journal of Sociology 6 (March 1955):48-60.

McKenzie, J. C. "The Composition and Nutritional Value of Diets in Man• chester and Dukinfield, 1841." Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 72 (1962):123-40.

McKeown, T., and R. G. Brown. "Medical Evidence Related to English Popu• lation Changes in the 18th Century." Population Studies 9 (November 1955):119-41.

McKeown, T., and R. G. Record. "Reasons for the Decline of Mortality in England and, Wales During the Nineteenth Century." Population Studies 16 (November 1962):94-122.

Marshall, T. H. "The Population of. England and Wales from the Industrial Revolution to the World War." Economic History Review 5 (April 1935):65-77.

. "The Welfare State: A Sociological Interpretation." European Journal of Sociology 2 (1961):284-300.

Middleton, N. "The Education Act of 1870 as the Start of the Modern Concept of the Child." British Journal of Educational Studies 18 (June 1970):166-78.

Newsholme, Sir A. "The Measurement of Progress in Public Health." Economica 3 (October 1923):186-202.

Nixon, J. W. "Size and Structure of the Household in England over Three Centuries." Population Studies 24 (November 1970):445-47.

Oddy, D. J. "Working Class Diets in Late Nineteenth Century Britain." Economic History Review, n.s. 23 (1970):314-22.

O'Neill, J. E. "Finding a Policy for the Sick Poor." Victorian Studies 1 (March 1964):265-84.

Owen, L. "The Welfare of Women in Labouring Families: England, 1860- 1950." Feminist Studies 3-4 (Winter/Spring 1973):107-25.

Palin, J. H. "The Feeding of School Children, Bradford's Experience." Socialist Review I (1908):207-19.

Phillips, S. "A Review of Mortality Statistics During the Last Half Century." . Clinical Journal 32 . (1908):55-61 and 73-80.

Pimlott, J. A. R. "Toynbee Hall and the Settlement Movement, 1884-1934." Contemporary Review 147 (April 1935):447-53. 239

Reeves, R. "Family Life on a Pound a.Week." Fabian Tracts 162 (Feb• ruary 1912):1-15.

Richter, M. "T. H. Green and his Audience: Liberalism as a Surrogate Faith." Review of Politics 18 (October 1956) :447-72.

Roach, J. "Liberalism and the Victorian Intelligentsia." Cambridge His• torical Journal 13 (1957):58-91.

Robertson, A. B. "Children, Teachers and Society: The Overpressure Con• troversy, 1880-1886." British Journal of Educational Studies 20 (October 1972):315-23.

Rodgers, B. "The Social Science Association, 1857-1886." The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 20 (September 1952):283-310.

. "The Medical Relief (Disqualification Removal) Act 1885." Parliamentary Affairs 9 (1955-56):184-94.

Ross, W. A. "Local Government Board Before and After: A Retrospect." Public Administration 34 (Spring 1956):17-25.

Schofield, E. M. "Food and Cooking of the Working Classes about 1900." Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 123 (1971):151-67.

Smith, S.. M. "Blue Books and the Victorian Novelist." The Review of English Studies,.. n.s.. 21 (1970) .-23-40.

Singer, C. "Medical Progress from 1850-1900." British Medical Journal (7 January 1950):57-60.

Spender, H. F. "Barnett. of ..Toynbee Hall. " Contemporary Review 115 (January 1919):31-37.

Stevenson, T. H. C. "The Fertility of Various Social Classes in England and Wales from theMiddle of the Nineteenth Century to 1911." Journal of the Royal Statistical.Society 83 (May 1920):401-32.

. "The Incidence of Mortality upon the Rich and Poor." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 84 (January 1921):90-99.

Stocks, P. "Fifty Years of Progress as Shown by Vital Statistics." British Medical Journal (7 January 1950):54-57.

Taylor, D. "London's Milk Supply, 1850-1900: A Re-interpretation." Agricultural History 45 (January 1971):33-38.

Thompson, D. "The Ebb and Flow of Infection." Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health 14 (July 1955):106-16. 240

Thompson, E. P. "Time, Work-discipline and Industrial Capitalism." Past and Present 38 (December 1967):56-97.

Viets, H. R. "West Riding 1871-1876." Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 6 (1938)-.477-87.

Walsh, B. M. "Marriage Rates and Population Pressure: Ireland, 1871 and 1911." Economic History Review, n.s. 23 (1970) .-148-62.

Wetham, E. H. "The London Milk Trade, 1860-1900." Economic History Review, n.s. 17 (1964):369-80.

Wilding, P. R. "The Genesis of the Ministry of Health." Public Adminis• tration 45 (Summer 1967):149-68.

Wilson, C. "Economy and Society in Late Victorian Britain." Economic History Review, n.s. 18 (1965):183-98.

Woodward, C. "Reality and Social Reform: The Transition from Laissez- Faire to the Welfare State." Yale Law Journal 72 (January 1962): 286-328.

Wohl, A. "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London." International Review of Social History 13 (1968):189-245.

8. Biographical or .Autobiographical Sources

Allen, B. Sir Robert Morant: A Great Public Servant. London, 1934.

Armytage, W. H. G. A. J. Mundella, 1825-1897, The Liberal Background to the Labour Movement.. London, 1951.

Barnett, Mrs. S. A. Cannon Barnett, His Life, Work and Friends. 2 vols. Boston, 1919.

Brittain, V. Testament of Youth, An Autobiographical Study of the Years 1900-1925. New York, 1934.

Briggs, A. Social Thought and Social Action: A Study of Seebohm Rown• tree, 1871-1954. London, 1961.

Booth, Mrs. C. Charles Booth: A Memoir. London, 1918.

Bosanquet, H. Bernard Bosanquet, A Short History of his Life. London, 1924.

Faber, G. Jewett: A Portrait with a Background. London, 1957.

Finer, S.E. The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick. London, 1952. 241

Fitzroy, A. Memoirs. 2 vols. London, 1925.

Hyndman, F. D. Record of an Adventurous Life. London, 1911.

Lambert, R. Sir John Simon, 1816-1904, and Social Administration. Lon• don, 1963.

Lewis, R. A. Edwin Chadwick and the Public Health Movement. London, 1952.

Lowndes, G. A. N. Margaret McMillan: The Children's Champion. London, 1966.

Mansbridge, A. Margaret McMillan: Prophet and Pioneer.. London, 1932.

Masterman, L. C. F. G. Masterman: A Biography. London, 1968.

Markham, V. Friendship's Harvest. London, 1956.

Newsholme, Sir.A. Fifty Years in Public. Health: A Personal Narrative with Comments. London, 1936.

Royal Statistical Society. Annals of the Royal Statistical Society, London, 1934.

Simey, T. S., and. M. B. Charles Booth: Social Scientist. London, 1960.

Vernon, A. A Quaker Businessman: The Life.of Joseph Rowntree, 1836-1925. London, 1958.

Webb, S. My Apprenticeship. London, 1971.

. Our Partnership. London, 1948.

9. Statistical Sources

Carr-Saunders, A. M., C. Carradog Jones, and C. A. Moser. A Survey of Social Conditions in England and Wales as Illustrated by Statistics. Oxford, 1937.

Deans, P., and w.-.-A. Cole. British Economic Growth, 1688-1959, Trends and Structure. Cambridge, 1969.

Marsh, D. C. The Changing Social Structure of England and Wales, 1871- 1951. London, 1965.

Mitchell, B. R. , and.P. Deans. Abstract of British Historical Statistics. Cambridge, 1971. 242

Page, W. Commerce and Industry: Tables of Statistics for the British Empire From 1815. London, 1919.

Great Britain. Abstract of Labour Statistics of the United Kingdom. vols. 25-29 (1915-28).

. Statistical Abstracts, vols. 40-42, 55-56, and 66 (various dates).

10. Unpublished Material

Manuscripts:

Vancouver, B.C. University of British Columbia. Alice Ravenhill Papers.

Theses: Farrall, L. A. "The Origins of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865- 1925." Ph.D. dissertation, Indianna University, 1969.

O'Neill, J. E. "Health and the State in Great Britain, 1865-1909: A Study in the Origins of the Welfare State." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1961.